BUS 375 Week 4 Assignment

Week 4 – Assignment

Senge’s Five Disciplines and Organizational Climate

The learning organization is affected by both the individual and the organizational climate. In a two- to three-page paper (excluding the title and reference pages), describe Senge’s five disciplines and the characteristics of an organizational climate that promotes organizational learning. Include the following in your paper:

1. Describe Senge’s five disciplines.

The Senge’s Five Disciplines are Shared Vision, Mental Models, Personal Mastery, Team Learning and Systems Thinking

2. Discuss characteristics of an organizational climate that supports organizational learning.

3. Analyze how organizational climate and Senge’s disciplines are related to organizational learning.

Your paper must include in-text citations and references from at least two scholarly sources, excluding the textbook. You may use this week’s lecture as an additional resource. Your paper must be formatted according to APA Guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 1/21

Chapter 7
(E)valuation of Training and Development

Ridofranz/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Differentiate between formative and summative evaluations.
Use Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework.
Compute return on investment.
Explain why evaluation is often neglected.

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

—Milton Friedman, Economist

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 2/21

In this �inal phase of ADDIE, we evaluate how effective the training has been. From assessing
any improvement in the KSAs of the trainees to the �inancial return on the training
investment, the evaluation phase appraises the effectiveness not only of our prior
analysis,design, development, and implementation, but also of the training in totality.

Introduction
We seek to answer one overarching question in the �inal, evaluation phase of ADDIE: Was the training effective? (See Figure 7.1.) In particular, we assess whether
we realized expected training goals—as uncovered by our analysis phase—speci�ically, whether the trainees’ posttraining KSAs improve not only their
performance, but also the organization’s performance. As we will see, the process of training evaluation includes all of these issues, as well as deciding which
data to use when evaluating training effectiveness, determining whether further training is needed, and assessing whether the current training design needs
improvement. Ultimately, evaluation creates accountability, which is vital given the signi�icant amount organizations spend on training and developing
employees—approximately $160 billion annually (ASTD, 2013). This signi�icant investment makes it imperative that organizations know whether their training
efforts yield a positive �inancial return on training investment (ROI).

Figure 7.1: ADDIE model: Evaluate

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 3/21

7.1 Formative Evaluation
Although evaluation is the last phase of ADDIE, it is not the �irst time aspects of the training program are evaluated. When it comes to training evaluation, we
assess the training throughout all phases of ADDIE, using �irst what is known as a formative evaluation. Formative evaluation is done while the training is
forming; that is, prior to the real-time implementation and full-scale deployment of the training (Morrison, Ross, & Kalman, 2012). Think of formative evaluation
as a “try it and �ix it” stage, an assessment of the internal processes of the training to further re�ine the external training program before it is launched.

Formative evaluations are valuable because they can reveal de�iciencies in the design, development, and implementation phases of the training that may need
revision before real-time execution (Neirotti & Paolucci, 2013; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013; Wan, 2013).

Recall from Chapter 6 that formative evaluations can range from editorial reviews of the training and materials—which may include a routine proofread of the
training materials to check for misspelled words, incomplete sentences, or inappropriate images—to content reviews, design reviews, and organizational
reviews of the training (Larson & Lockee, 2013; Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013). So, for example, we may �ind in a content review that our training is not
properly linked to the original learning objectives. Or we may conclude during a design review that because e-learning is not a good �it with the organizational
culture, instructor-led training is a more appropriate choice.

Formative evaluations also encompass pilot testing and beta testing. With pilot tests and beta tests, we are out to con�irm the usability of the training, which
includes assessing the effectiveness of the training materials and the quality of the activities (ASTD, 2013; Stolovitch & Keeps, 2011; Wan, 2013). Both beta tests
and pilot tests are considered types of formative evaluation because they are performed as part of the prerelease of the training. For the pilot and beta testing,
selected employees and SMEs are chosen to test the training under normal, everyday conditions; this approach is valuable because it allows us to pinpoint any
remaining �laws and get feedback on particular training modules (Duggan, 2013; Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013).

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 4/21

Training evaluation can be broken down into short-term and long-term assessments. Short-
term evaluations are usually trainee focused, whereas long-term assessments are focused on
the training itself.

Although levels 1 and 2 are most used and usually easiest to compile, levels 3, 4, and 5 (ROI)
are deemed to be the most valuable information in assessing training effectiveness, but they
require complex calculations.

7.2 Summative Evaluation
Whereas formative evaluation focuses on the training processes, summative evaluation focuses on the training outcomes—for both the learning and the
performance results following the training (ASTD, 2013; Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013). Summative evaluation is the focus of the E phase of ADDIE. According to
Stake (2004), one way to look at the difference between formative and summative evaluation is “when the cook tastes the soup, that’s formative evaluation;
when the guests taste the soup, that’s summative” (p. 17).

In summative evaluation, we assess whether the expected training goals were realized and, speci�ically, whether the trainees’ posttraining KSAs improved their
individual performance (and, ultimately, improved the organization’s overall performance). As Figure 7.2 depicts, in summative evaluation, we assess both the
short-term learning-based outcomes—such as the trainees’ reactions to the training and opinions about whether they actually learned anything—and the long-
term performance-based outcomes. These long-term performance-based outcomes include assessing whether a transfer of training occurred—that is,
application to the workplace via behavior on the job—as well as whether any positive organizational changes resulted, including return on investment (Noe,
2012; Phillips, 2003; Piskurich, 2010).

Figure 7.2: Summative evaluation’s short-term and long-term
outcomes

As Figure 7.3 depicts, however, the most common assessments organizations perform with summative evaluation are ultimately the least valuable to them
(ASTD, 2013; Nadler & Nadler, 1990). The next section will discuss each level of evaluation.

Figure 7.3: Use versus value in evaluation

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 5/21

Source: Adapted from American Society for Training & Development. (2013). State of the industry report.
Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 6/21

Donald Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation is the widely used standard to illustrate each level of training’s impact on
the trainee and the organization as a whole. Kirkpatrick’s typology is a good starting point to frame discussions
regarding the trainee’s reaction to the training (level 1), if anything was learned from the training (level 2), if the
trainee applied the training through new behavior (level 3), and ultimately, if the training resulted in positive
organizational results (level 4).

7.3 Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation Framework
Perhaps the best known and most drawn-upon framework for summative evaluation was introduced by Donald Kirkpatrick (Neirotti & Paolucci, 2013; Phillips,
2003; Piskurich, 2010; Vijayasamundeeswari, 2013; Wan, 2013), a Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin and past president of the ASTD.
Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation taxonomy—�irst published in 1959 in the US Training and Development Journal (Kirkpatrick, 1959; Kirkpatrick,
2009)—depicts both the short-term learning outcomes and the long-term performance outcomes (see Figure 7.4). Let us detail each level now.

Figure 7.4: Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation

Level 1—Reaction: Did They Like It?

A level 1 assessment attempts to measure the trainees’ reactions to the training they have just completed (Kirkpatrick, 2009; Wan, 2013; Werner & DeSimone,
2011). Speci�ically, level 1 assessments ask participants questions such as:

Did you enjoy the training?
How was the instructor?
Did you consider the training relevant?
Was it a good use of your time?
Did you feel you could contribute to your learning experience?
Did you like the venue, amenities, and so forth?

A level 1 assessment is important not only to assess whether the trainees were satis�ied with the training session per se, but also—and perhaps more
signi�icantly—to predict the effectiveness of the next level of evaluation: level 2, learning (ASTD, 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Morrison et al., 2012; Noe, 2012; Wan,
2013). That is, as level 1 reaction goes, so goes level 2 learning. According to a recent study (Kirkpatrick & Basarab, 2011), there was a meaningful correlation
between levels 1 and 2, in that positive learner engagement led to a higher degree of learning. This outcome speci�ically follows the idea of attitudinal direction
(Harvey, Reich, & Wyer, 1968; Kruglanski & Higgins, 2007), whereby a positive reaction (emotional intensity) can lead to constructive conclusions, as depicted in
the following formula:

Attitudinal Direction

Perception + Judgment → Emotion (Level 1)

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 7/21

Donald Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation pyramid is a standard for training evaluation. At the base of
the pyramid are Level 1, how the trainee reacts to training, and Level 2, how the employee learns
from the training.

1. Would it be fair to say the Level 1, Reaction, is the most subjective level? Explain.
2. Explain how Level 2, Learning, might be more dif�icult to con�irm if the learning is not
observable rather than observable.

(Positive) Emotion → Learning (Level 2)

With attitudinal direction in mind, a level 1 evaluation is attentive to the measurement of attitudes, usually using a questionnaire. A level 1 survey includes both
rating scales and open-ended narrative opportunities (Clark, 2013; Neirotti & Paolucci, 2013; Wan, 2013).

Typically, participants are not asked to put their names on the survey, based on the assumption that anonymity breeds honesty. Level 1 evaluation instruments
are part of the training materials that would have been created in the development phase of ADDIE.

Level 2—Learning: Did They Learn It?

In a level 2 assessment, we attempt to measure the trainees’ learning following the training that they just completed (Kirkpatrick, 2009; Wan, 2013; Werner &
DeSimone, 2011) and, speci�ically, in relation to the learning outcomes we established during the analysis and design phases of ADDIE. Remember, learning
outcomes can include cognitive outcomes (knowledge), psychomotor outcomes (skills), and affective outcomes (attitudes) (Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010;
Rothwell & Kazanas, 2011).

With cognitive outcomes, we determine the degree to which trainees acquired new knowledge, such as principles, facts, techniques, procedures, or
processes (Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010; Rothwell & Kazanas, 2011). For example, in a new employee orientation, cognitive outcomes could include
knowing the company safety rules or product line or learning the company mission.
With skills-based or psychomotor learning outcomes, we assess the level of new skills as a function of the new learning, as seen, for example, in newly
learned listening skills, con�lict-handling skills, or motor or manual skills such as computer repair and replacing a power supply (Morrison et al., 2012;
Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010).
Affective learning outcomes focus on changes in attitudes as a function of the new learning (Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010). For example, trainees who
learned a different attitude regarding other cultures following diversity training or those who gained a new attitude regarding the importance of safety
prevention after a back injury–prevention training class have achieved learning outcomes.

As with level 1, evaluations for level 2 are done immediately after the training event to determine if participants gained the knowledge, skills, or attitudes
expected (Morrison et al., 2012; Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010). Measuring the learned KSA outcomes of level 2 requires testing to demonstrate improvement in
any or all level 2 outcomes:

Cognitive outcomes and new knowledge are typically measured using trainer-constructed achievement tests (such as tests designed to measure the
degree of learning that has taken place) (Duggan, 2013; Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013).
For newly learned motor or manual skills, we can use performance tests, which require the trainee to create a product or demonstrate a process
(Duggan, 2013; Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013).
Attitudes are measured with questionnaires similar to the questionnaires described for level 1 evaluation, with the participants giving their ratings for
various items (for example, strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree). They also include open-ended items to let trainees describe any
changed attitudes in their own words (for example, “How do you feel about diversity in the workplace?”) (Duggan, 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Noe, 2012;
Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013).

With a level 2 posttraining learning evaluation, Kirkpatrick recommends �irst giving participants a pretest before the training and then giving them a posttest
after the training (Cohen, 2005; Kirkpatrick, 1959; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Phillips, 2003; Piskurich, 2010) to determine if the training had any effect, positive or
negative. Creating valid and reliable tests is not a casual exercise; in fact, there is a credential one can attain to become an expert in testing and evaluation
(http://www.itea.org/professional-certi�ication.html (http://www.itea.org/professional-certi�ication.html) ). Does the test measure what it is intended to
measure? If the same test is given 2 months apart, will it yield the same result?

Training Evaluation and Kirkpatrick’s 4-level Pyramid, Part I

Critical Thinking Questions

HRD in Practice: A U.S. Department Uses Level 2 Evaluation
The U.S. Department of Transportation uses oral quizzes or tests for level 2 evaluation. Oral quizzes or tests are most often given face-to-face and
can be conducted individually or in a group setting. Here is a typical example of the department’s level 2 oral quizzing:

http://www.itea.org/professional-certification.html

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 8/21

1. When it comes to Highway Safety tell me two safety challenges you are facing right now in your state or region.
2. What are “special use” vehicles and what is special about them?
3. What type of crossing is required for train speeds over 201 km/h (125 mph)?
4. Identify the following safety device? …
5. De�ine what a passive device is? Can anyone give me an example of a passive device?
6. What are three types of light rail alignments?
7. Why is aiming of roundels so critical? (p. 4)

Source: US Department of Transportation. (2004). Level II evaluation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.nhi.�hwa.dot.gov/resources/docs/Level%20II%20Evaluation%20Document
(https://www.nhi.�hwa.dot.gov/resources/docs/Level%20II%20Evaluation%20Document )

Consider This

1. Do you think this is a good way to evaluate trainees’ knowledge? Why or why not?
2. Do you think it is better to conduct this oral quiz in a group or individually. Explain your reasoning.
3. What suggestions could you provide to improve the level 2 oral quizzes for the U.S. Department of Transportation?

Level 3—Behavior: Did They Apply It?

A level 3 evaluation assesses the transfer of training; that is, do the participants of the training program apply their new learning, transferring their skills from
the training setting to the workplace, and as a result, did the training have a positive effect on job performance? Level 3 evaluations speci�ically focus on
behavioral change via the transfer of knowledge, skills, and attitudes from the training context to the workplace.

However, before assessing skills transfer to the job, let us consider a practicality to the transfer of training evaluation: We must allow trainees a suf�icient amount
of time and opportunity to apply the training skills in the workplace (Piskurich, 2010). The amount of time will depend on numerous factors, including (ASTD,
2013; Cohen, 2005; Morrison et al., 2012; Noe, 2012; Wan, 2013):

the nature of the training,
the opportunity available to implement the new KSAs, and
the level of encouragement from line management.

Typically, we can con�irm transfer by observing the posttrained participants and conducting work sampling (Kirkpatrick, 2009; Noe, 2012; Wan, 2013);
evaluation can occur 90 days to 6 months posttraining (Kirkpatrick, 2009; Tobias & Fletcher, 2000). Figure 7.5 shows an example of level 3 training results.

Furthermore, as we will discuss in more detail in Chapter 8:

positive transfer of training is demonstrated when we observe positive changes in KSAs, and
negative transfer is evident when learning occurs, but we observe that KSAs are at less-than-pretraining levels (Noe, 2012; Roessingh, 2005;
Underwood, 1966).

As discussed in Chapter 2, a trainee may have learned from the training but not be willing to apply the training to the workplace for several reasons. It may
sound something like, “Oh, I know how to do it, but I am not doing it for you.” This is known as zero transfer of training, in which learning occurs, but we
observe no changes in trainee KSAs. So, and perhaps not surprisingly, there is not a strong positive correlation between level 2 learning and level 3 behavior
(Kirkpatrick & Basarab, 2011). That is, just because trainees learn something does not mean they will necessarily apply it. As discussed in previous chapters,
irrespective of learning the new KSAs and being able to apply them to the workplace, the trainee must also be willing to apply them.

Level 4—Results: Did the Organization Bene�it?

With a level 4 evaluation, the goal is to �ind out if the training program led to improved bottom-line organizational results (such as business pro�its). Similar to
the correlation between levels 1 and 2, studies have shown a correlation between levels 3 and 4 (Kirkpatrick, 2009); speci�ically, if employees consistently
perform critical on-the-job behaviors, individual and overall productivity increase.

Level 4 outcomes can include other major results that contribute to an organization’s effective functioning. Level 4 outcomes are either changes in �inancial
outcomes or changes in other metrics (for example, excellent customer service) that should indirectly affect �inancial outcomes at some point in the future; these
are known as performance drivers (Swanson, 1995; Swanson & Holton, 2001). Here are some examples of level 4 performance drivers and outcomes (Cohen,
2005; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Phillips, 2003; Piskurich, 2010):

Improved quality of work
Higher productivity
Reduction in turnover
Reduction in scrap rate
Improved quality of work life
Improved human relations
Increased sales
Fewer grievances

https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/docs/Level%20II%20Evaluation%20Document

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTok… 9/21

The top half of Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation pyramid consists of Level 3, transfer of training to the
trainee, and Level 4, overall organizational results from training. Level 3 is perhaps the most
complex level of evaluation because there may be many reasons why a trainee is able to apply
learning, but is unwilling. However, if trainees apply learning, the organization should bene�it with
positive changes in their outcomes, or Level 4. Studies have linked effective transfer, to improved
organizational results.

1. Although success in Level 1, Reaction, has been linked to success in Level 2, Learning,
explain why success in Level 2 may not always be linked to success in Level 3, Transfer
of Training.

2. Provide an example of why a trainee may have learned how to do a task but is not
willing to apply that knowledge.

3. Are there aspects of transfer of training (Level 3) that would not affect overall
organizational results (Level 4)? Explain.

4. Other than the examples provided in the video, what are other organizational results
that may result from training?

Lower absenteeism
Higher worker morale
Fewer accidents
Greater job satisfaction
Increased pro�its

Training Evaluation and Kirkpatrick’s 4-level Pyramid, Part II

Critical Thinking Questions

Isolating the Effects of Training

A major challenge to evaluation training’s effectiveness is isolating any subsequent performance improvement to the training itself. That is, improved
performance may correspond to the timing of the training but may not be linked to new training itself. Phillips (2003) attributes this to the need for isolation.
For example, Cohen (2005) described the following scenario:

Let’s say training was focused on new selling techniques for an organization’s sales reps and the post-training assessment of sales and call volume are
found to be signi�icantly better than the pre-training amounts; this change could be as much due to an upward turn in the economy as it is to the
training itself. (p.23)

In this case linking the improvement to training would be incorrect, so we must protect against erroneously ascribing performance improvement to nontraining
reasons. To mitigate this possibility, along with using pretests and posttests in level 2, Kirkpatrick (1959, 2009) also recommends using control groups to
statistically manage and separate the impact of other variables. Control groups do not receive the training, or they go through other training unrelated to the
training of interest, so we can assess the unique effect of the training intervention. In Cohen’s example, a control group would include sales reps not subjected to
the speci�ic training program, and then the control group’s performance would be compared to the trained group (known as the experimental group) of sales
reps (Cohen, 2005; Kirkpatrick, 1959; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Phillips, 2003; Piskurich, 2010).

Level 4 outcomes in particular may be dif�icult to isolate to the training program. This is because in order to assess any of the level 4 outcomes, more time must
elapse to make a complete assessment. For example, an organization might have to wait 2 or 3 �iscal quarters to see if decreased turnover or higher productivity
follow training on those topics. As a result, by the time of assessment, other factors may have had a chance to affect the level 4 outcomes. This is what Sanders,
Cogin, and Bainbridge (2013) called a confounding variable, or another factor that obscures the effects or the impact of the training (Guerra-López, 2012). In
sum, not unlike a 7-day weather forecast, a level 4 evaluation—although still valuable data—is usually more dif�icult to credit to the original training because it is
the most removed from the training event (Johnson & Christensen, 2010; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Sonnentag, 2003).

Linking Kirkpatrick Outcome Levels to the Performance Formula

Remember that in Chapter 2, we broke down workplace performance by understanding what components make up job performance; speci�ically, an outcome of
three variables:

Ability—the employee’s capacity to perform the job; collectively, their KSAs
Motivation—the employee’s willingness to perform the job voluntarily
Environment—anything within the organizational environment (such as the supervisor, systems, and coworkers) that would affect the employee’s job
performance

The Performance Formula

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 10/21

By synthesizing Kirkpatrick and the performance formula, we can illustrate a training’s
impact not only on employee performance, but also on organizational performance in total.

Performance = f(KSAs × M × E)

KSAs = Ability; M = Motivation; E = Environment

Using Kirkpatrick’s taxonomy (see Figure 7.5), we can see where summative outcomes are expressed within employee performance (Blanchard & Thacker, 2010;
Mitchell, 1982).

Figure 7.5: Synthesizing Kirkpatrick and the performance
formula

As Figure 7.5 shows, posttraining employee performance (level 3) is dependent on the effectiveness of both levels 1 and 2, reaction and learning. Speci�ically, the
newly learned knowledge and skills are in level 2, learning, and the attitudes and motivation toward the new learning are in level 1, reaction. Importantly,
posttrained performance is both contingent on and subsequently affects the organizational environment level 4 outcomes. Speci�ically, posttrained employee
performance is subject to the antecedent state of the organizational environment (for example, the quality and state of the departmental supervision would
affect the ef�icacy of the posttraining employee performance). However, it is also expected that the collective performance from the posttrained employee base
would ultimately in�luence and affect the future state of the organizational environment and organizational outcomes and show itself in level 4 outcomes such
as improved customer service, more ef�icient systems, and reduced error rates.

HRD in Practice: The Case of the $25,000 Hello
Adam did a double take at the �inal invoice the consultants had faxed in.

$7,000—the bold digits jumped out at him. Adding this invoice to their �irst two invoices, the total for the customer service training was now
close to $25,000.

Man, this training was expensive! Adam thought.

It had all started because the receptionist had greeted a caller with a dry hello instead of giving a pleasant greeting and introducing herself, he
remembered. They had had a few customer complaints about the receptionist’s lack of pleasantness, but unfortunately, on this day the caller was
the owner, Mr. Lager. “What kind of message of customer service are we sending to folks, Adam?” Lager had asked. “I want those receptionists to
make the callers feel like we are a likeable and friendly company. Take care of it, and ASAP!”

Since Adam was in charge of administration, he contracted a customer service training �irm immediately. And it seemed to be good training, too.
It had spanned 2 months, and all the employees who dealt with customers were required to take it. Adam received reports that the trainers were
very good; the sessions were said to be fun and informative. The trainers made sure the trainees learned new techniques about providing
excellent customer service by requiring each attendee to pass a customer service test. All the trainees had earned a certi�icate to demonstrate
the new learning.

In fact, now, after the training, anyone who called into the company heard a pleasant and happy greeting: “Hello, So-and-So speaking. How can I
help you?”

But, $25,000? Was it worth the expense? Adam pondered. Would this be considered a questionable return on the company’s training
investment?

Consider This

1. What types of �inancial data could Adam review to establish the monetary bene�its of the training to support the $25,000 expense and a
positive return on the training investment?

2. What could Adam point to as proof of successful level 1 evaluation?
3. Success in Kirkpatrick’s level 3 is demonstrated in which part of the case?

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 11/21

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 12/21

7.4 Return on Investment
As the case of the $25,000 hello illustrates, not only do we want new learning to be applied to the workplace and to impact organizational performance, we also
want to do that in the most cost-effective and ef�icient way. Summative evaluation should, in the end, lead to judgments on the value and worthiness of a training
program; therefore, we also evaluate the cost bene�it of a training program and evaluate return on training investment, the so-called level 5. What Donald
Kirkpatrick was to levels 1 to 4, Jack Phillips is to level 5.

Phillips is an internationally renowned expert on measuring the return on investment of human resource development activities. Over the past 20 years, Phillips
has produced more than 30 books on the subject of ROI and has been a leading �igure in the debate about the future role of human resources (Noe, 2012;
Phillips, 2003; Piskurich, 2010). ROI, or level 5, evaluates the bene�its of the training versus the costs. Speci�ically, at this level we compare the monetary bene�its
from the program with the costs to conduct the training program (Noe, 2012; Phillips, 2003; Piskurich, 2010; Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009).

According to Phillips (2003), the ROI measurement must be simple, and the process must be designed with a number of features in mind. The ROI process must:

be simple,
be economical to implement,
be theoretically sound without being overly complex,
account for other factors that can in�luence the measured outcomes after training,
be appropriate in the context of other HRD programs,
be �lexible enough to be applied in pre- and posttraining,
be applicable to all types of data collected, and
include the costs of the training and measurement program.

The two common ways to express training’s return on investment are a bene�it–cost ratio (BCR) and a return on investment (ROI) percentage. To �ind the
BCR, we divide the total dollar value of the bene�its by the cost, as shown in the following formula:

BCR = (Total Dollar Value of Bene�its) ÷ (Cost of Training)

We determine ROI percentages by subtracting the costs from the total dollar value of the bene�its to produce the dollar value of the net bene�its; these are then
divided by the costs and multiplied by 100 to develop a percentage:

Total Dollar Bene�its – Costs of Training = Net Bene�its

Net Bene�its ÷ Costs × 100 = ROI

So, for example, if a traditionally delivered training program produced total bene�its of $221,600 with a training cost of $48,200, the BCR would be 4.6. That is,
for every dollar invested, $4.60 in bene�its is returned. The ROI, therefore, would be 360%. According to research conducted by SyberWorks, because e-learning
alleviates the need for trainee and trainer travel, e-learning has ROIs that regularly outperform traditionally delivered training (Boggs, 2014).

Did You Know? Training ROI

Not all return on investment is created equal! Depending on the industry and/or type of training, the ROI (measured by the BCR) will vary by
sector, as shown in Table 7.1. As a result, it is dif�icult to formulate a rule of thumb about what an appropriate or fair ROI should be for a given
training intervention. ROI will necessarily differ from organization to organization, based on variables such as required �inancial margins,
stakeholder preferences, organizational culture, and overall corporate mission. In sum, and according to training ROI guru Jack Phillips, ROI
sometimes is simply used qualitatively, just to see if a program is working or not.

Table 7.1 Examples of bene�it–cost ratio per industry

Industry Training program BCR

Bottle company Management development 15:1

Commercial bank Sales training 12:1

Electric utility Soft skills 5:1

Oil company Customer service 5:1

Health care �irm Team training 14:1

Source: Based on Phillips, J. J. (2003). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

In context, the signi�icance of ROI—and training itself—means different things to different people; that is, different constituencies have different perceptions of
ROI evaluation. For example, a board of directors may see a big picture of how the training affects the company’s ability to achieve its corporate goals: The
�inance department may be looking to see how training stacks up �inancially against other ways to invest the company’s money; the department manager may be

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 13/21

In gathering data to compute ROI, each method has its pros and cons. Methods vary from
surveys (the most popular method in a recent survey) to interviews and focus groups, which
are more complex and take more time.

solely concerned with the impact on performance and productivity in achieving department goals; and the training and development manager may be concerned
with how training programs affect the credibility and status of the company’s training function (Hewlett-Packard, 2004; Phillips & Phillips, 2012; Russ-Eft &
Preskill, 2009).

While ROI is seen as bene�icial, determining ROI can be a time-consuming endeavor; in fact, for that reason, Phillips (2003) asserts that evaluating the ROI of a
learning event is not appropriate in every situation. Speci�ically, Phillips and Phillips (2012) suggest that calculating ROI does not add value in the following
situations:

If activities are very short, it is unlikely that any signi�icant change in behavior will have resulted.
If activities are required by legislation or regulation, evaluators will have little power to initiate changes because of their �indings.
If activities are used to provide learners with the basic technical know-how to perform their role, ROI data will be meaningless. Here, Phillips argues that
evaluating to level 3 is more appropriate in these situations because the training is not optional.

Hard Data Versus Soft Data

Part of the overall challenge in computing returns on investment in training concerns how we determine costs and bene�its with regard to tangible and
intangible data. For example, intangible or indirect training bene�its such as customer satisfaction, improved work relationships, and organizational morale are
more dif�icult to put a dollar amount on than are tangible or direct bene�its such as lower turnover, fewer workplace injuries, and decreased workers’
compensation premium costs. Training costs, too, can be direct or indirect. Direct costs include all expenses related to facilitating the training; examples are the
cost of hiring a consultant, conference room fees, equipment rental, and employee travel costs (Piskurich, 2010). Indirect costs of training may include such
personnel expenses as salary costs and the costs of lost sales while employees are at training (Piskurich, 2010).

Tangible and direct data is easier to memorialize and list, as well. Training expense, for example, comes directly off an organization’s income statement. Well-
trained workers, although an asset that serves as a good predictor of the tangible outcomes, are considered off-balance-sheet assets and are not as easily tracked
on the organizational accounting systems (Brimson, 2002; Weatherly, 2003).

Data Gathering Methods

We need data to compute ROI, and we can choose from a variety of data gathering methods. As Figure 7.6 depicts, a review of data gathering methods shows that
follow-up surveys of participants, action planning—such as “asking participants to isolate the impact of the training” (Phillips & Phillips, 2012, p. 95)—
performance records monitoring, and job observation were the preferred data collection methods.

Figure 7.6: Data gathering methods

Source: American Society for Training & Development, 2013; Phillips & Phillips, 2012.

Each data gathering method has its unique advantages and disadvantages; this includes speci�ic consideration to and trade-offs between data collection time and
the cost of collecting the data, as well as the fact that some data gathering methods may require a special skills set (for example, how to conduct a focus group).

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 14/21

Additionally, each method offers aspects of soft and/or hard cost–bene�it data and, as a result, subsequent analyses may be more complex. As the next section
will discuss, because of these and other reasons, evaluation is many times postponed or neglected outright.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 15/21

7.5 Evaluation: Essential, but Often Neglected
Perhaps, and not surprisingly so, many organizations neglect or overlook the higher levels of evaluation. Some surveys show that only about 20% of
organizations conduct a formal evaluation of training’s effectiveness (ASTD, 2013; Brown & Gerhardt, 2002; Noe, 2012; Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009; Wang &
Wilcox, 2006; Werner & DeSimone, 2011).

The reasons for not conducting training evaluation are varied. Recently, Russ-Eft & Preskill (2009) researched the prevailing reasons why evaluation is not done
more often within organizations; notably, their �indings include the view that organizations do not value evaluation in general. This may be a function of many
things, including the organization lacking expertise in performing evaluations, a fear as to what the evaluation may yield, and even the practical rationale that no
one has asked for it!

In the �inal analysis, neglecting evaluation is not only unprofessional, it is may also be unethical (see the Food for Thought feature box titled “Application of
Evaluation”). We will look further into the ethics of training in Chapter 10.

Food for Thought: Application of Evaluation
There are organizations that prioritize quality evaluations to maintain the integrity of the business. For example, the American Evaluation
Association (http://www.eval.org (http://www.eval.org/) ) includes high-quality evaluation as part of its code of ethics value statements for
organizations that would be socially responsible as it relates to evaluation practices. Speci�ically, the association’s value statements in the
practice of evaluation are as follows:

We value high quality, ethically defensible, culturally responsive evaluation practices that lead to effective and humane organizations and
ultimately to the enhancement of the public good.
We value high quality, ethically defensible, culturally responsive evaluation practices that contribute to decision-making processes,
program improvement, and policy formulation.
We value a global and international evaluation community and understanding of evaluation practices.
We value the continual development of evaluation professionals and the development of evaluators from under-represented groups.
We value inclusiveness and diversity, welcoming members at any point in their career, from any context, and representing a range of
thought and approaches.
We value ef�icient, effective, responsive, transparent, and socially responsible association operations. (American Evaluation Association,
2013)

Consider This

1. What does the American Evaluation Association mean by culturally responsive evaluation practices?
2. How would ethical evaluation within an organization impact the public good?

Even with its ethical obligations, at its core, evaluation’s objective is not only to ascertain if organizational training with its respective programs are effective, but
also, if training is ineffective, to produce data so as to hold those responsible for training accountable as well.

Sampling of Evaluation Models

Besides Kirkpatrick’s and Phillips’s, there are, of course, other evaluation models. However—and perhaps not surprisingly—many of the evaluation models are
variations on the same themes. That is, evaluation models tend to assess the individual, process, and organizational levels, as well as consider the environment
or context in which the training takes place. Let us look at some other popular evaluation models used.

Stuf�lebeam’s CIPP

The CIPP model of evaluation was developed by Daniel Stuf�lebeam and colleagues in the 1960s. CIPP is an acronym for “context, input, process, and product.”
This evaluation model requires the evaluation of context, input, process, and product in judging a program’s value. CIPP is a decision-focused approach to
evaluation; it emphasizes the systematic provision of information for program management and operation. As shown in Table 7.2, the CIPP model is an attempt
to make evaluation directly relevant to the needs of decision makers during a program’s different phases and activities.

Table 7.2: The CIPP model of evaluation

Aspect of evaluation Type of decision Kind of question answered

Context evaluation Planning decisions What should we do?

Input evaluation Structuring decisions How should we do it?

Process evaluation Implementing decisions Are we doing it as planned? And if not, why not?

Product evaluation Recycling decisions Did it work?

Source: Stuf�lebeam, D. L., & Shink�ield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. New York: Wiley. Reprinted with permission.

http://www.eval.org/

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 16/21

Kaufman’s Five Levels of Evaluation

Roger Kaufman (Kaufman, 1999) originally created a four-level assessment strategy called the organizational elements model; a modi�ication to the model
resulted in the addition of a �ifth level, which assesses how the performance improvement program contributes to the good of society in general, as well as
satisfying the client. Kaufman’s evaluation levels are shown in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Kaufman’s �ive levels of evaluation

Level Evaluation Focus

5 Societal outcomes Societal and client responsiveness, consequences and payoffs.

4 Organizational output Organizational contributions and payoffs.

3 Application Individual and small group (products) utilization within the organization.

2 Acquisition Individual and small group mastery and competency.

1b Reaction Methods’, means’, and processes’ acceptability and ef�iciency.

1a Enabling Availability and quality of human, �inancial, and physical resources input.

Source: Kaufman, R. (1999). Mega Planning: Practical Tools for Organizational Success: SAGE Publications. Excerpted from p.6 Table 1.1 of Kaufman. R. (2008) The Assessment Book,
HRD Press. ISBN 9781599961286. Reprinted with permission.

CIRO: Context, Input, Reaction, and Outcome

The CIRO (context, input, reaction, and outcome) four-level approach was developed by Peter Warr, Michael Bird, and Neil Rackham (Warr, Bird, & Rackham,
1971). Adopting the CIRO approach to evaluation gives employers a model to follow when conducting training and development assessments. Employers should
conduct their evaluation in the following areas:

C—Context or environment within which the training took place. Evaluation here goes back to the reasons for the training or development event or
strategy. Employers should look at the methods used to decide on the original training or development speci�ication. Employers need to look at how the
information was analyzed and how the needs were identi�ied.
I—Inputs to the training event. Evaluation here looks at the planning and design processes, which led to the selection of trainers, programs, employees,
and materials. Determining the appropriateness and accuracy of the inputs is crucial to the success of the training or development initiative.
R—Reactions to the training event. Evaluation methods here should be appropriate to the nature of the training undertaken. Employers may want to
measure the reaction from learners to the training and to assess the relevance of the training course to the learner’s roles. Assessment might also look at
the content and presentation of the training event to evaluate its quality.
O—Outcomes of the training event. Employers may want to measure the levels at which the learning has been transferred to the workplace. This
measurement is easier when the training involves hard and speci�ic skills—as would be the case for a train driver or signal operator—but is harder for
softer and less quanti�iable competencies, including behavioral skills. If performance is expected to change because of training, then the evaluation needs
to establish the learner’s initial performance level.

It is fair to say that, although many of the evaluation models may vary around the same themes, certain evaluation models may be more appropriate to use than
others, depending on the context and focus. For example, whereas the Kirkpatrick and CIPP models focus on training evaluation, they do not underscore the
evaluation of the �inancial returns on investment like Phillips’s model. Likewise, unlike other tactical evaluation models, Kaufmann’s model, because of its focus
on societal outcomes, is not limited to training initiatives and may be used more broadly in other evaluative contexts such as consumer marketing or evaluating
an organization’s corporate citizenship efforts.

HRD in Practice: Back to the Case of the $25,000 Hello
When we last left Adam, he was pondering whether the $25,000 expense for the customer service training was worth it. Adam wondered,
“Would this be considered a questionable return on the company’s training investment?” After performing a return on investment for the
training program, Adam realized that, in fact, the training was not cost effective, with a –1.6% ROI. Tables 7.4 and 7.5 show some of Adam’s
analysis, in which he found the bene�its of the training were $24,615 but the direct costs were $25,000:

Table 7.4: Adam’s ROI analysis

Task Result

1. Focus on a unit of measure. Reduction in number of complaints.

2. Determine a value of each unit. Take an average cost per complaint; include direct and indirect
costs—in this case $547.

3. Calculate the change in performance data. Six months after the program, there were 50 fewer complaints,
with 30 of those directly attributed to supervisors as a result of
techniques taught in the training program.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 17/21

4. Determine an annual amount for the change. It was decided an annual reduction of 45 complaints was
conservative and realistic.

5. Calculate the total value of the improvement. Total value of improvement attributable to training was 45 ×
$547 = $24,615.

Table 7.5: Other organizations’ training ROI that Adam researched

Study or setting Target group Program
description

Business measures ROI

Verizon
Communications

Training staff, customer
service

Customer service skills
training

Reduced call escalations (–85%)

Retain Merchandise
Company

Sales associate Retails sales skills Increased sales
revenues

118%

U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs

Managers, supervisors Leadership
competencies

Cost, time savings,
reduced staff
requirements

159%

Source: Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2006). The ROI �ieldbook. Copyright © 2006 International Society for Performance Improvement. New York: Wiley. Reprinted
with permission of John Wiley and Sons.

During his research on training evaluation, Adam saw that the results could have been much worse; in fact, he read that Verizon had a more
extensive customer service training that had an astounding –85% ROI! “Wow!” Adam uttered aloud, “Evaluation cannot be overlooked!”

Consider This

1. Adam agreed that the skills outcome for the customer service training was a success. Speci�ically, after the training, anyone who now called
the company heard a pleasant and happy greeting: “Hello, So-and So-speaking. How can I help you?” In the �inal analysis, does it really
matter if the ROI was -1.6%?

2. What measures could Adam have taken to ensure a positive ROI?
3. Do you think the training company that Adam contracted had an ethical obligation to ensure a positive ROI? Speci�ically, could they have
charged less and gotten the same result?

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 18/21

Summary and Resources
Chapter Summary

The focus of formative evaluation is the evaluation of the process, as the training is forming; summative evaluation, however, focused on the outcomes and
speci�ic training results—both the learning and performance.
For summative evaluation, we used Kirkpatrick’s four-level taxonomy, which is depicted as a pyramid showing the four stages of evaluation: reaction,
learning, behavior, and results.
The chapter also discussed return on investment, sometimes known as level 5. With ROI, we can check to see how cost-effective and ef�icient the training
program is, which in turn can lead to judgments on the value of training. A particular challenge in computing returns on investment in training concerns
tangible data versus intangible data, also known as hard versus soft data.
Finally, we discussed why organizations often neglect evaluation. The number one reason is that organization members do not value evaluation. In sum,
neglecting training evaluation may be not only unprofessional, but also unethical.

Assess Your Learning: Critical Re�lection

1. Explain how formative evaluation is linked to summative evaluation in the training evaluation process.
2. How dependent is level 1, reaction, on level 2, learning? How might a trainee learn something from a training workshop he or she thought was awful?
3. Could you make a case for continuing with a training program that is yielding a negative ROI?
4. If a training program is found to have a positive ROI, does this measure indicate that the training should be renewed? If not, why?
5. Describe some ethical problems that might occur if training evaluation is neglected.
6. As it relates to levels 2 and 3, learning and behavior, what is meant by the statement “not everything learned is observable?”

Additional Resources

Web Resources

Jack Phillips’s ROI Institute:
http://www.roiinstitute.net (http://www.roiinstitute.net/)

The Bottom Line on ROI: The Jack Phillips Approach. Canadian Learning Journal, 7(1), Spring 2003:
http://www.learning-designs.com/page_images/LDOArticleBottomLineonROI (http://www.learning-
designs.com/page_images/LDOArticleBottomLineonROI )

Evaluation of Training Effectiveness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HqEfxz5YNU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HqEfxz5YNU)

For information on outcome evaluation:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rkrueger/evaluation_oe.html (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rkrueger/evaluation_oe.html)

For more on Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation model:
http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm (http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm)

A government website on training and development policy:
http://www.opm.gov/wiki/training/Training-Evaluation.ashx (http://www.opm.gov/wiki/training/Training-Evaluation.ashx)

More information on how to measure training effectiveness:
http://www.sentricocompetencymanagement.com/page11405617.aspx (http://www.sentricocompetencymanagement.com/page11405617.aspx)

More on formative and summative evaluation:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/types_of_evaluations.html (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/types_of_evaluations.html)

More on ROI in Training and Development:
http://www.shrm.org/education/hreducation/documents/09-0168%20kaminski%20roi%20tnd%20im_�inal
(http://www.shrm.org/education/hreducation/documents/09-0168%20kaminski%20roi%20tnd%20im_�inal ) and
http://www.shrm.org/Education/hreducation/Pages/ReturnonInvestmentTrainingandDevelopment.aspx
(http://www.shrm.org/Education/hreducation/Pages/ReturnonInvestmentTrainingandDevelopment.aspx)

Measuring ROI on learning and development:
http://www.astd.org/Publications/Books/Measuring-ROI (http://www.astd.org/Publications/Books/Measuring-ROI)

Further Reading

American Society for Training & Development. (2013). State of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

http://www.roiinstitute.net/

http://www.learning-designs.com/page_images/LDOArticleBottomLineonROI

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rkrueger/evaluation_oe.html

http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm

http://www.opm.gov/wiki/training/Training-Evaluation.ashx

http://www.sentricocompetencymanagement.com/page11405617.aspx

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/types_of_evaluations.html

http://www.shrm.org/education/hreducation/documents/09-0168%20kaminski%20roi%20tnd%20im_final

http://www.shrm.org/Education/hreducation/Pages/ReturnonInvestmentTrainingandDevelopment.aspx

http://www.astd.org/Publications/Books/Measuring-ROI

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 19/21

Boggs, D. (2014). E-learning bene�its and ROI comparison of e-learning vs. traditional training. Retrieved from SyberWorks website:
http://www.syberworks.com/articles/e-learningROI.htm (http://www.syberworks.com/articles/e-learningROI.htm)

Clark, D. (2013). Introduction to instructional system design. Retrieved from Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition website:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat1.html (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat1.html)

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2009). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler.

Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2012). Proving the value of HR: How and why to measure ROI. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

Piskurich, G. M. (2010). Rapid training development: Developing training courses fast and right. New York: Wiley.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Tips and recommendations for successfully pilot testing your program. Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/teen_pregnancy/training/tip_sheets/pilot-testing-508 (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-
initiatives/teen_pregnancy/training/tip_sheets/pilot-testing-508 )

Key Terms

Click on each key term to see the de�inition.

accountability
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

The willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.

achievement tests
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Tests designed to measure the degree of learning that has taken place.

affective outcomes
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Attitudes; focuses on changes in attitudes as a function of the new learning.

antecedent state
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

The organizational environment prior to the training, on which posttrained performance depends; for example, how effective and ef�icient the performance is.

cognitive outcomes
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Knowledge; outcomes that show the degree to which trainees acquired new knowledge, such as principles, facts, techniques, procedures or processes.

confounding variable
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Any factor that obscures the effects or the impact of the training.

control group
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A group used in order to statistically manage and separate the impact of other variables so that the unique effect of the training intervention can be assessed.

cost bene�it
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

The relationship between the cost of an action and the value of the results.

experimental group
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A group of subjects exposed to an experimental study.

four-level training evaluation taxonomy
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

http://www.syberworks.com/articles/e-learningROI.htm

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat1.html

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/teen_pregnancy/training/tip_sheets/pilot-testing-508

https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm#

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 20/21

A theory developed by Donald Kirkpatrick and used to determine the effectiveness of the training and development process, depicting both the short-term
learning outcomes and the long-term performance outcomes at four levels: reaction, learning, transfer, and results.

future state
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

The posttraining organizational environment, on which performance from a well-trained employee base has an effect; for example, a more effective and ef�icient
environment.

isolation
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Isolating any subsequent performance improvement to the training itself.

learning outcomes
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Results that are established during the analysis and design phases of ADDIE; cognitive outcomes (knowledge), psychomotor outcomes (skills), and affective
outcomes (attitudes).

negative transfer
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A transfer demonstrated when KSAs are at less-than-pretraining levels.

organizational results
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Outcomes or results that contribute to the functioning of an organization, such as business pro�its.

performance drivers
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Changes in �inancial outcomes or other metrics that should indirectly affect �inancial outcomes in the future.

performance tests
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Tests that require the trainee to create a product or demonstrate a process.

positive transfer
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A transfer demonstrated when positive changes in KSAs are observed.

posttest
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A test administered after a program to assess the level of a learner’s knowledge or skill.

psychomotor outcomes
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

Skills; assessment is based on the level of new skills as a function of the new learning, as seen, for example, in newly learned listening skills, con�lict-handling
skills, or new motor or manual skills.

questionnaires
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A set of evaluation questions asked of participants, who give their ratings for various items (for example, Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly
Disagree); or open-ended items that allow participants to respond to any changed attitudes in their own words (for example, “How do you feel about diversity in
the workplace?”).

reaction
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

The �irst level in Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation, in which the evaluation assesses whether the trainees liked the training session per se; it is also a
good predictor of the effectiveness of the next two levels of evaluation.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&content=all&clientTo… 21/21

return on investment (ROI) percentage
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A percentage calculated by subtracting the costs from the total dollar value of the bene�its to produce the dollar value of the net bene�its, and then dividing this
amount by the costs and multiplying the result by 100 to produce a percentage.

return on training investment (ROI)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

An analysis that evaluates the cost bene�it of a training program via evaluation of the bene�its of the training versus the costs; sometimes called level 5 on top of
Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation taxonomy.

transfer of training
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

An evaluation that assesses whether the participants of the training program applied their new learning from the training setting to the workplace; the ability of
trainees to apply to the job the knowledge and skills they gain in training.

zero transfer
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section

A transfer of training that is demonstrated if learning occurs but no changes are observed in KSAs.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 1/19

Chapter 8
Transfer of Training

Lisa F. Young/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Explain the framework for training transfer.
Describe the accountability for transfer of training.
Summarize the barriers to transfer.
Understand how the learning organization supports transfer.

While Mark Twain once said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody
does anything about it,” the same could be said about training transfer:

“Everybody talks about training transfer, but nobody does anything about it.”
—Anonymous

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 2/19

Introduction
As early as 1957 James Mosél, a professor of psychology at George Washington University and the founding director of the university’s industrial psychology
program, observed that training often seemed to make little or no difference in job behavior (Broad, 2005; Mosél, 1957). Since that time, training transfer
(Kirkpatrick’s level 3)—the degree to which trainees demonstrate new behaviors by effectively applying to the job the KSAs gained in a training context—has
been what Dennis Coates (2008), the CEO of Performance Support Systems, calls the Holy Grail of workplace training programs. In fact, more than half a century
later, two separate longitudinal research studies that aggregated individual studies of training transfer estimated that still as little as 10 to 20% of the knowledge
or skills taught in training programs is effectively transferred to the workplace (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008).

As this chapter will discuss, training transfer not only depends on the trainee’s willingness and ability, but also on an organizational climate that encourages
transfer—both tactically and strategically. The importance of the organizational climate is seen, for example, in a learning organization (Senge, 1990), an
organization that, through sharing and dialogue, promotes positive training transfer. This chapter will also discuss whether supervisors, trainees, or trainers are
responsible for the transfer of training (Broad, 2005; Kopp, 2006).

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 3/19

There are key dimensions linked to the transfer of training including trainee characteristics,
the training design, and the work environment itself.

8.1 A Framework for Training Transfer
As Figure 8.1 shows, Baldwin and Ford (1988) �irst illustrated the process of training transfer by showing how, in addition to learning (level 2) from the training,
training transfer was linked to three factors or dimensions, namely: trainee characteristics, training design, and work environment. The premise here is that each
factor contributes to the success of training transfer and therefore to workplace performance. Let us break down each factor.

Figure 8.1: Training transfer model

Source: Adapted from Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for
future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.

Trainee Characteristics

Trainee characteristics include how willing and able the trainee is to apply the training. Therefore, although other factors will in�luence whether the training is
transferred, transfer depends in no small part on the states of ability and willingness, as Table 8.1 summarizes.

The desired posttraining state is one in which the trainee is able and willing to apply the new learning to the job. As Chapter 2 discussed, speci�ic leadership
styles, per Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory, can in�luence or act upon a follower’s willingness and ability (Daft, 2014; Hersey & Blanchard,
1977). For example, with a willing and able (R4) trainee, the transfer is voluntary, and following training, a supervisor might merely monitor the trainee to
ensure that workplace barriers are limited.

Table 8.1: Trainee ability and willingness to transfer

Trainee type Ability Willingness Transfer potential

R1 – – None

R2 – + Low; stimulated

R3 + – Low; stimulated

R4 + + High; voluntary

For a trainee who remained not able but willing (R2) following a training, a supervisor might spend more time explaining and clarifying the training to the
trainee. Doing so might uncover not only a need for additional training, but also perhaps a learning style or disability issue the employer needs to accommodate.
For example, in the United Kingdom, new legislation makes all workplaces dyslexia-friendly workplaces (Dyslexia Action, n.d.).

Trainees who are able but not willing (R3) to apply the new learning to the workplace may need an attitudinal intervention; in these cases the supervisor
intervenes with the trainee to address aspects of self-ef�icacy, commitment, or interpersonal skills (James, 1890; Noe, 2012). The goal of these interventions with
R2 and R3 trainees is for the supervisor to stimulate the transfer that does not happen voluntarily (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005).

Did You Know? Transfer of Learning Versus Transfer of Training

Semantically, although some assert that the terms transfer of learning and transfer of training are synonymous (Cormier & Hagman, 1987),
sometimes distinctions are made. One distinction is when the focus is on cognition and knowledge acquisition—underscoring that not all that is
learned is observable. For example, when a new customer service agent tries out the newly memorized sales script on a caller, the term transfer
of learning may be more appropriate. When there is a focus on the transfer of particular motor skills and outcome-based behavior, such as when
an employee from a cable company is trying for the �irst time to hook up a DVR to a television, then transfer of training would be used.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 4/19

Finally, if trainees routinely leave the training programs unable and unwilling (R1) to apply the new learning, this outcome suggests a systemic problem;
perhaps management should review recruiting practices with the human resources department (Alagaraja, 2012; Blanchard & Thacker, 2010).

Training Design

Training design is the dimension of the transfer framework that refers to factors built into the training program to increase the chances that transfer of training
will occur (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Ford, 2014; Noe, 2012; Werner & DeSimone, 2011). Two particular theories of transfer have implications for training design:
theory of identical elements and cognitive theory, �irst proposed by Edward Thorndike in 1928.

Theory of Identical Elements

The theory of identical elements uses the idea that the amount of transfer between the familiar situation and the unfamiliar one is determined by the number of
elements that the two situations have in common (Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). That is, transfer of training is enhanced when what trainees learn in the
training session matches what they will be doing on the job (Orata, 2013; Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). In his experiment to underscore the importance of
identical elements, Thorndike had participants judge the area of rectangles, and then he tested participants on the related task of estimating the areas of circles
and triangles. Transfer was assessed by the degree to which learning skill A (estimating the area of squares) in�luenced skill B (estimating the area of circles or
triangles). Thorndike found little evidence of transfer and, from this �inding, concluded that “transfer of a skill was directly related to the similarity between two
situations” (Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901, p. 15).

As a result, transfer is based on making the training environment similar to the job environment; this is known as near transfer—metaphorically, the transfer
distance between the training environment and the application to the job environment (Ford, 2014; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Wan, 2013). An example of near
transfer would be a training for a department store cashier in which new employees train on a cash register that matches the registers the department actually
uses.

An extension of the theory of identical elements is the concept of stimulus generalization, which emphasizes the transfer of general principles and
maintenance of skills. This concept is known as far transfer, the application of learned behavior, content knowledge, concepts, or skills in a situation that is
dissimilar to the original learning context (Ford, 2014; Holton & Baldwin, 2003). Suppose that a trainee had learned from a workshop to use con�lict-handling
skills not only at work, but also at home with his spouse; this situation would be an example of far transfer. Table 8.2 gives some everyday examples of near and
far transfer.

Table 8.2: Examples of near and far transfer

Near Far

Transfer from using one type of coffee mug to another
type of mug

Transfer from drinking hot coffee using a mug to drinking hot coffee using a thermos
(rule: do not burn yourself)

Transfer from using one shuttle bus to another Transfer from reading the shuttle bus schedule to reading an airline schedule

Transfer from using a knife and fork to using a different
size knife and fork

Transfer from using a knife and fork to using chopsticks

Source: Adapted from Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. New York: Wiley.

If we consider near and far transfers as transfer outcomes, then the processes of transfer linked to near and far are known as low-road transfer and high-road
transfer (Doyle, McDonald, & Leberman, 2012; Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Speci�ically, low-road transfer, which facilitates near
transfer, occurs when the context is so familiar or perceptually similar (Ford, 2014; Svinicki, 2004) to what the trainee already knows that a re�lexive or
automatic triggering of transfer occurs without conscious contemplation; this unconscious competence is known as automaticity (Bargh, 2013). For example, a
trainee hired as a stockroom forklift operator who has experience driving Caterpillar™ forklifts would most likely have a low-road near transfer, even though the
hiring company uses Komatsu™ brand forklifts.

In high-road transfer, linked to far transfer, the trainee must consciously draw on previous knowledge, skills, or attitudes. The trainee now applies conscious
competence of previous KSAs to perceptually different, but conceptually similar, contexts (Ford, 2014; Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Svinicki, 2004). An example of
high-road far transfer is a new marketing department employee drawing on the concepts of game theory learned in college to analyze the competition and the
interactions between manufacturers and retailers (Chatterjee & Samuelson, 2013).

HRD in Practice: High-Road, Far Transfer
Justin Moore is the CEO of Axcient, a rapidly growing cloud services provider. Moore, now 31, is also a former star of the youth chess circuit.
Moore does not play much competitively anymore, but even so, the kinds of thinking learned from his days as a chess prodigy have deeply
informed the way he runs a successful start-up. In a sense, Moore does still play chess every day—by running Axcient.

“Of course, it’s a business commonplace to recommend forethought. But, in chess, the metaphor is literalized. You’re constantly looking two,
three, four moves ahead,” explains Moore. “If you do this move, what’s the countermove? What are all the countermoves? And then, for all of
those, what are all of my potential countermoves? Chess is constantly teaching you to think about what comes next, and what comes after that,

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 5/19

and what the repercussions could be.” In a chess game your mind is constantly running permutations of decision trees. In a business your mind
should be doing the same.

A chess match is a war of attrition. If a soccer match is egregiously lopsided at halftime, the game still progresses. But, if White accidentally loses
his queen a few moves into the game, it is likely he will resign. A properly matched chess game is often fought to the point that only a few pawns,
pieces, and the opposing kings remain—a bare-board state known as endgame. The entirety of a chess game is all a prelude to endgame.

“Chess is about getting to endgame,” says Moore. “What happens between the start and then doesn’t necessarily matter. You could lose more
pieces or a more valuable piece, and at the end of the day, if you capture the opponent’s king, you win the game.”

Pattern recognition. Playing chess teaches you to recognize patterns: the tempting bishop sacri�ice that actually led you into a trap, the queen
swap that looked favorable but prevented you from castling. You play; you learn. Moore tells a story about how pattern recognition helped his
business. In 2011 Moore and his team were trying to improve customer satisfaction. They worked from the assumption that one metric in
particular—case backlog—was the best predictor of customer satisfaction. It seemed reasonable to assume that if you had low or zero backlog,
your customers would be happy. “It turned out we were wrong,” says Moore. After 3 months of wandering through the weeds, Moore’s team
realized that a better predictor of customer satisfaction was the time it took to respond to a customer request, combined with frequency of
updates.

A great chess player has a deep awareness of each piece’s role on the board. A bishop has different abilities than a knight has, and its powers are
expanded or limited by a board’s pawn structure. In some ways chess is a laboratory for human resources problems. “You have to understand
the strengths and weaknesses of the team, of your employees,” says Moore. “You have to understand that the pawn has its role, and it’s a very
important one, just as important as the queen, rook, or bishop. Every piece is critical, and the only way to win is to leverage all those pieces’ skill
sets together.”

Source: Zax, D. (2013, February 19). Six strategy lessons from a former chess prodigy who’s now a CEO. Fast Company. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo
(http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo)

Consider This

1. How did Moore draw on the pattern recognition in chess to solve his customer service issue?
2. In what ways did the game of chess condition Moore to be proactive versus reactive?
3. What was the signi�icance of Moore’s example of differentiating between soccer and chess?

Cognitive Theory of Transfer

The cognitive theory of transfer is based on trainees’ ability to retrieve, manage, and deploy learned capabilities. For training design, the richer the connections
between the skill and real-world knowledge, the better the chance of retrieval, and therefore, the better the likelihood of transfer (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Noe,
2012; Stolovitch & Keeps, 2011). Speci�ically, transfer is more probable if the trainees can see the potential applications of the training content to their jobs; this
idea is consistent with adult-learning principles set forth by Malcolm Knowles (Ha�ler, 2011; Knowles, 1973):

Adults bring life experiences and knowledge to learning experiences.
Adults are goal oriented.
Adults are relevancy oriented.
Adults are practical.

As it relates to the cognitive methods of knowledge recall, the late educational psychologist Robert Gagné’s classic nine events of instruction (Gagné, 1965) is still
used today (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005; Romiszowski, 2013) in instructional design.

Table 8.3 summarizes how—after gaining the trainee’s attention (for example, level 1, reaction) and ensuring that the trainee is aware of the training objectives
—stimulating recall of prerequisite learning is reinforced by subsequent events that ultimately lead to enhanced retention and transfer; learning processes
include semantic encoding (learning in context), opportunities for reinforcement, and providing cues to assist in retrieval. As discussed in Chapter 2, cues can
include job aids, which can enhance transfer. Job aids can be used during actual performance of tasks; they give information that helps the trainee know what
actions and decisions a speci�ic task requires (Stolovitch & Keeps, 2011; Willmore, 2006).

Table 8.3: Gagné’s nine events of instruction

Instructional event Relation to learning process

1. Gaining attention Reception of patterns of neural impulses

2. Informing learner of the objective Activating a process of executive control

3. Stimulating recall of the prerequisite
knowledge

Retrieval of prior memory to working
memory

http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 6/19

The organizational environment not only has to have an actual climate for training transfer,
but the transfer-friendly environment must also be perceived by the employees.

4. Presenting the stimulus material Emphasizing features for selective
perception

5. Providing learning guidance Semantic encoding; cues for retrieval

6. Eliciting the performance Activating response organization

7. Providing feedback about performance Establishing reinforcement

8. Assessing performance Activating retrieval; making reinforcement
possible

9. Enhancing retention and transfer Providing cues and strategies for retrieval

Source: Adapted from Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Self-Directed Learning Part of training design should include aspects of self-management, designing the training to use a trainee’s propensity and level for
self-direction (Broad, 2005; Guglielmino, 2001; Noe, 2012; Rothwell & Sensenig, 1999; Saks, Haccoun, & Belcourt, 2010). Self-directed learning is the level of
initiative in the trainee’s motivation to acquire the new ability and is linked to a trainee’s self-ef�icacy (Bijker, Van der Klink, & Boshuizen, 2010). Self-directed
trainees are empowered to take more responsibility in their learning endeavors; as a result, self-directed trainees are more apt to transfer learning, in terms of
both knowledge and skill, from one situation to another (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Guglielmino, 2001; Knowles et al., 2012). As described in Chapter 5, self-
direction does not always equate to self-teaching; for example, for purposes of reinforcing transfer, a self-directed trainee may choose to be shown again how to
do a task rather than self-teaching.

Work Environment

Training transfer has also been linked to the trainees’ perceptions about the work environment (E). As discussed earlier and depicted here in Figure 8.2, this idea
is consistent with the performance formula, whereby not only must E remain positive (+), but also perceptions about E must remain positive (+), as well.

For transfer to occur, the trainee must perceive that the work environment has a climate for transfer. A climate for training transfer includes factors such as
level of supervisor support, opportunities to practice trained tasks, and openness to change (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010;
Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Salas, Tannenbaum, Cohen, & Latham, 2013). Holton, Bates, and Ruona (2000) found speci�ic variables that in�luenced the transfer
climate; these include supervisor support or sanctions, resistance or openness to change, levels of coaching or mentoring, and positive or negative personal
outcomes (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000). Peer support, too, was seen as a determinant of trainee transfer (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2008;
Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Holton et al., 2000; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993), although not any stronger than supervisor support (Van den Bossche, Segers, & Jansen,
2010). Table 8.4 lists frequencies of transfer categories.

Figure 8.2: Environment includes trainee perceptions

Source: Adapted from Blanchard, P. N., & Thacker, J. W. (2010). Effective training: Systems, strategies, and
practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Table 8.4: Frequencies of transfer categories

Transfer factor Frequencey (%)

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 7/19

Transfer in�luences
Learner characteristics
Trainer characteristics
Design and development
Work environment

3 (2%)
8 (4%)
104 (46%)
112 (49%)

Time period
Before
During
After
Not time bound

28 (12%)
70 (31%)
74 (32%)
56 (25%)

Stakeholder support
Trainee
Trainer
Supervisor
Peer
Organization

53 (23%)
109 (48%)
57 (25%)
2 (1%)
7 (3%)

Source: Burke & Hutchins, 2008.
Note. Emergent factors are in italics. Transfer in�luences were coded as 1 = learner characteristics, 2 = trainer
characteristics, 3 = design and development, 4 = not time bound; stakeholder support was coded as 1 = trainee, 2 =
trainer, 3 = supervisor, 4 = peer, 5 = organization.

Food for Thought: Apply Transfer of Training
Practice some key ideas in transfer of training with Baylor University’s E-Learning Module: http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT
(http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT) .

Consider This

1. Using the cognitive theory of transfer, what would be some techniques that would enhance transfer?
2. What would be examples of peer support in training transfer?
3. What is meant by the term intellectual capital as it relates to training transfer?

Trainees are also more motivated to transfer training when it is part of pursuing desirable outcomes or rewards (or to avoid undesirable outcomes). The value
trainees place on such outcomes is known as valence, and the trainee’s belief that he or she will actually receive that outcome or reward when the performance
expectation is met is known as instrumentality. This is part of the expectancy process theory of motivation (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) that in�luences certain
decisions that employees will make—in this case, transfer of the training.

Positive outcomes include not only extrinsic rewards such as salary increases and bonuses, but also intrinsic rewards such as opportunities for advancement and
recognition (Broad, 2005; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Holton et al., 2000, Vroom & Yetton, 1973).

On the Quality of Transfer: Negative and Positive

Not all transfer is equal, and when managing transfer, we need to consider two states:

Positive transfer. Near and far transfer enables what is known as positive transfer. Positive transfer is when workplace performance improves due to the
training. Positive transfer is more likely when the trainee’s prior learning facilitates the trainee’s acquisition of the new learning or skills. For example, a
trainee’s prior experience in learning an older inventory package expedites his or her learning procedures for using the newer package. This concept is
consistent with Knowles’s principles of adult learning, where prior experience informs new learning (Knowles, 1973).
Negative transfer. When the trainee performance worsens following the training, this is considered negative transfer. Speci�ically, negative transfer can
happen when a trainee’s prior learning interferes with the acquisition of the new learning or skills. For example, users who switch from a BlackBerry
phone, with its physical keyboard, to an iPhone, with its virtual keyboard, �ind it more dif�icult to type and text than users who are switching from a
Samsung phone, which also has a virtual keyboard. This idea is consistent with Hedberg’s (1981) assertion that there are times, in fact, when adults have
to unlearn ideas before new learning can occur.

Training transfer is not just a binary proposition. That is, we do not just evaluate whether or not transfer occurred (zero transfer is when we observe no change
in the trainee’s KSAs). Speci�ically, we also must be mindful that new training may negatively affect the trainee, and the resulting performance not only may fail to
improve but, in fact, may become worse than it was before the training.

http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 8/19

Although there has been no consensus about who is ultimately accountable for the transfer
of training (or, “where the transfer buck stops”), many in the �ield agree that a shared
accountability exists between the trainer, trainee, and direct manager—the so-called
training trinity.

8.2 Accountability for Training Transfer
At the end of the (training) day, who is responsible for level 3’s training transfer? Is it the trainer, the trainee, or the trainee’s supervisor?

While there is no clear HRD-policy answer (Burke & Hutchins, 2008), many training scholars and practitioners have suggested a transfer trinity, or triad,
consisting of the trainer, the trainee, and the manager (Blume et al., 2010; Haskell, 2001; Rummler & Brache, 1990); each one plays a role to ensure transfer
success. (See Figure 8.3.) Others propose that management is ultimately responsible for ensuring transfer (Esque & McCausland, 1997), and still others place
more on the trainer’s shoulders (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Broad, 2005; Kopp, 2006). Here, trainers not only lead their training toward voluntary transfer, but
also stimulate the transfer after the training event, including having trainers partner with supervisors and managers to support trainees in their new learning.

Figure 8.3: Training transfer trinity

Source: Adapted from Coates, D. (2008). Enhance the transfer of training. Alexandria, VA: ASTD, p. 7.

Using diabetes education and training as a backdrop, Kopp (2006) speci�ically suggested that the trainer be primarily accountable for training transfer; he
argued that trainers should take ownership of level 3, so that a distinction could be made between effective trainers and ineffective ones. He viewed the trainer
as individually necessary and jointly suf�icient in training transfer. That is, although the trainer alone is not suf�icient for (and does not guarantee) transfer, the
trainer was fundamentally necessary—and it follows, therefore, that the trainer cannot be absolved of primary accountability. Burke and Saks (2009) seek
commonality rather than a single-minded construct; they conclude that many stakeholders can (and should) be held accountable for transfer and the transfer-
related activities that they can affect.

The Who, What, and When of Transfer

Broad’s and Newstrom’s (1992) extensive research on training transfer included assembling a panel of experts and—using a Delphi method in which the
rankings from the experts are collated—the perceptions of roles in transfer strategies where given a �inal rank in every phase of transfer: before, during, and after
(see Table 8.5). (Also see the Food for Thought feature box titled “Transfer Strategies,” which provides a link to a summary of Broad and Newstrom’s work.) One
of their �indings was that the most frequently used roles in transfer differed from the most in�luential roles in transfer during a given phase of transfer. For
example, although the panel thought the manager had the most in�luential role before transfer (�irst), managers were actually ranked �ifth in frequency of use
before transfer.

Table 8.5: Frequency versus in�luence

Ranking—most frequently used roles in transfer

Before During After

Trainer (facilitator) 2 1 7

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=087… 9/19

Manager 5 6 9

Learner 8 3 4

Ranking—most in�luential roles in transfer

Before During After

Trainer (facilitator) 2 4 8

Manager 1 9 3

Learner 7 5 6

Source: Adapted from Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books.

For example, whereas the trainer was most frequently used in the total transfer process, the manager was thought to be the most in�luential in the transfer
process, even given the manager’s limited role during the training. This �inding was consistent with Burke and Hutchins’s (2008) more recent research, which
con�irmed that the role of trainers (48%) was more in�luential than the role of supervisors (25%) during training transfer. In their study, Burke and Hutchins
selected training professionals and practitioners who were members of a large metropolitan chapter of ASTD and asked about the suggested best practices for
enhancing and bolstering training transfer.

Table 8.6 outlines recommended strategies and action items for each transfer agent.

Table 8.6: Actions items of transfer agents

Transfer
agent

Time period

Before During After

Manager Communicate that learning is a prime
organizational objective.

Encourage full participation by ensuring trainee’s
job is covered during the learning program.

Provide opportunities to practice
and demonstrate new skills.

Trainer Provide clear description and precourse
information to trainee and manager.

Ensure good delivery. Provide follow-up consultation to
maximize application.

Trainee Clear up daily activities prior to the
learning program.

Participate actively and ask questions. Discuss performance objectives
and action plans with manager.

Source: Broad, 2000; Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2008.

Food for Thought: Transfer Strategies
Listen to the Center for Corporate and Professional Development describe transfer strategies in every phase of transfer (before, during, and
after): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4) .

Consider This

1. How formalized should the responsibilities of manager, trainer, and trainee be prior to the training?
2. Is there a case to be made that the process of transfer should be organic and not hard coded? Why or why not?
3. Would the roles during transfer vary when it comes to informal or incidental learning? Explain your reasoning.

Manager or supervisor support for applying new skills has consistently been found to be a key factor affecting the success of the transfer process (Broad, 2000;
Broad, 2005; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993). Speci�ically, a manager’s support and positive attitudes toward the trainee may result in opportunities to practice
newly learned skills, whereas negative attitudes toward the trainee may cause the manager to assign unchallenging tasks that fail to allow the employee to
practice newly learned skills.

In sum, a trainee’s manager may provide either more or fewer opportunities to perform newly learned skills (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Ford, 2014; Ha�ler, 2011;
Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Noe, 2012). Table 8.7 summarizes transfer support responsibility among the training transfer triad of manager, trainer, or trainee.

Table 8.7: Support per transfer agent

Support method Implementing agent

Establish explicit objectives Manager

Repetition of learning Trainee

Evaluation and feedback Manager

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 10/19

Use multiple examples Trainee

Trainee selection Manager

Supervisory support Manager

Cultivation of meaning in material Trainer and trainee

Source: Adapted from Cresswell, S. (2006). Practitioner guide to transfer of learning and training. Albany, NY: Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy; Haskell, R. E. (2001).
Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 11/19

One way to frame training transfer is to view it through a change management lens. Using
Lewin’s force-�ield analysis, we can see why transfer does or does not occur, speci�ically as a
function of driving forces and restraining forces.

8.3 Barriers to Training Transfer
Many potential barriers affect training transfer, and these barriers are more likely to be situational, not dispositional; that is, these barriers affect the trainee but
are not caused by the individual trainee (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Noe, 2012). As part of their extensive research, Broad and
Newstrom (1992) not only surveyed trainers and trainees from a range of organizations to rank barriers to training transfer, they also evaluated a collection of
organizational case studies—including their own at Saturn Corporation, an automaker subsidiary of General Motors, that described how transfer was obstructed
or enhanced (see Table 8.8).

Table 8.8: Barriers to training transfer

Rank: Highest to
lowest

Organizational barrier

1 Lack of reinforcement on the job

2 Interference in the work environment

3 Nonsupportive organizational structure

4 Trainees view the training as impractical

5 Trainees view the training as irrelevant

6 Trainees’ discomfort with change

7 Trainees’ separation from trainer after training

8 Poor training design and/or delivery

9 Peer pressure against change

Source: Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books. Reprinted with
permission from the authors.

No factor was found to be more impactful than lack of reinforcement on the job, ranked the highest as an organizational barrier. Speci�ically, negative or
inadequate responses from supervisors can diminish the trainee’s attempts at applying new skills to the job (Ford, 2014; Morrison, Ross, & Kalman, 2012; Wan,
2013. The second-ranked barrier, interference in the work environment, can occur when the trainee lacks the necessary equipment or information to apply the
new learning; for example, an employee tries to use new videoconferencing but the remote link is slow or intermittently drops the line. Also, the supervisor’s
opposition to, or rejection of, the use of new skills or failure to provide the trainee with opportunities to apply the new skills or knowledge is an example of a
nonsupportive organizational structure, the third-ranked barrier to transfer (Bates & Davis, 2010; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993).

According to Sales Performance International (2014), 55% of respondents listed a lack of posttraining implementation as one of the top weaknesses of sales
training; when tested 5 weeks after training, participants in the sales training forgot half of what was taught. In sum, the top three barriers were lack of
reinforcement, interference in the work environment, and a nonsupportive organization (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Park, 2008).

Transfer of Training as Change Management

Transfer of training means changing employee behavior through the new training (that is, level 3); as a result, the potential exists for trainees to resist that
change. Not surprisingly, resistance to change can be seen literally or symptomatically as all or part of other barriers presented—for example, peer pressure
against change, trainees’ discomfort with change, not seeing the training as relevant or practical (Broad & Newstrom,1992). Consequently, one of the
implications is that effective trainers, managers, and supervisors need to be effective change agents. One way to manage transfer is to frame it as an aspect of
change management (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Connor, Lake, & Stackman, 2003; Laird, Naquin, & Holton, 2003; O’Toole, 2010).

Kurt Lewin, a renowned psychologist, is considered the father of social psychology; he studied change from a group dynamics and organizational development
point of view (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Lewin developed what is known as force-�ield analysis, a framework for looking at the factors (or forces) that
in�luence situations. Force-�ield analysis evaluates the forces that are either driving the change (facilitators) or restraining the change (restrainers or barriers)
(Cummings & Worley, 2014; Lewin, 1943). Simply put, from a training perspective, if restrainers are more potent than drivers, then transfer most likely will not
occur. Speci�ically, for example, if the organizational culture is more unsupportive than not, or if peer pressure is greater than peer support, these factors will
prove to be too dominant for transfer to take place, even if the trainee is willing and able. Likewise, with a supportive organizational environment, transfer may
not be realized with a trainee who is unable or unwilling (see Figure 8.4).

Figure 8.4: Transfer as change management

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 12/19

Food for Thought: Apply Force-Field Analysis
This case study shows how Eastland Memorial Hospital implemented electronic health records (EHRs) and illustrates how driving forces
(catalysts) and restraining forces (barriers) must be managed. The case study, titled “Overcoming the Top Five Barriers to EHR Implementation,”
was coauthored by Ted Matthews, CEO of Eastland Memorial Hospital. It illustrates examples of barriers or restraining forces to training:
http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20Whitepaper
(http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20Whitepaper )

Consider This

1. What would be examples of driving forces in Eastland Memorial’s quest to change over to EHRs?
2. What would be examples of restraining forces?
3. Describe what factors will dictate if driving forces are stronger than restrainers.

http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20Whitepaper

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 13/19

Management theorist Peter Senge proposed �ive characteristics that make up the learning organization. These key
characteristics include personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking.

8.4 Transfer and the Learning Organization
Peter Senge, founding chair of the Society for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management, �irst coined the term learning organization. Senge
(1990, 2010) de�ined a learning organization as an organization where people continually expand their capacity to create the desired results, where new and
expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where there is collective aspiration, and where people are continually learning together. He contends that what
speci�ically distinguishes a learning organization from a more traditional organization is the mastery of certain basic disciplines. The so-called �ive disciplines
Senge identi�ied are: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking (see Figure 8.5).

Figure 8.5: The learning organization

Studies have shown that a learning organization culture predicts a positive learning transfer climate (Alipour, Idris, & Karimi, 2011; Bates & Khasawneh, 2005)
and, particularly, that a learning organization—through the transfer of training—improves its overall performance outcomes and facilitates an organization’s
competitive advantage (Haskell, 2001; Park, 2008; Weldy, 2009). A learning organization is thought to be more effective in training transfer because it moves
beyond simple employee training into organizational problem solving, innovation, and learning (Agbettor, 2013; Ford, 2014; Neirotti & Paolucci, 2013; Noe,
2012; Reed & Signorelli, 2011). Transfer of training is supported by each of the �ive disciplines as described by Senge:

Personal mastery involves an individual’s ability to know what he or she wants and the desire to work toward that goal. A learning organization creates
an environment in which members can develop themselves toward goals and purposes; transfer of training encourages expertise seeking of KSAs
(Ackerman, Vokmar, & Volker, 2002).
Mental models are the employee’s internal worldview or paradigm. Learning organizations are based on holistic paradigms; that is, the organization is
thought to be a living, breathing organism because it is �illed with living, breathing organisms (Boje, 1991; Hassard, 1995). Therefore, in a holistic
paradigm, the focus is on the process of transfer, not just the transfer itself.
Shared vision is building a sense of commitment in an organization by developing shared images of the future. This process includes developing the
principles and guiding practices used to reach the goal. With respect to training transfer, organizations create shared vision by involving trainees in
setting goals and training outcomes (Carter, Ulrich, & Goldsmith, 2012; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001).
Team learning is geared toward developing collective thinking skills. These skills enable members of a group to reliably develop intelligence and abilities
greater than the sum of the individual members’ talents. Transfer should be framed in the context of individual performance, team performance, and
ultimately, organizational performance (Lee, Bond, Scarbrough, Gillan, & Cooke, 2007).
Systems thinking is a way of thinking about and understanding the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems. This mode of
thinking helps organizations see how to change the systems more effectively by error detecting and correcting (Argyris, 1999). If we look at transfer as
part of the ADDIE system of training, we can assist transfer by better understanding the ADDIE subsystem, with its interrelationships and linkages.

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 14/19

Training programs that embed the principles of the learning organization have been found to be
more effective. Organizational learning processes include sharing, dialogue, and a commitment to
expertise. In the long term, learning organizations cannot be sustained without the presence of
active organizational learning processes.

1. What is an example of a shared mental model as part of a learning organization?
2. Describe what an organizational culture that supports organizational learning
initiatives might look like.

One way to illustrate the relationship between organizational learning and the learning
organization is to use the house metaphor. Think of a learning organization as a structure
itself, or house, and organizational learning as the active processes that occur within the
house.

Did You Know?

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization

Critical Thinking Questions

Can you have one without the other? As the metaphor in Figure 8.6 depicts, organizational learning is a process that works within the learning
organization’s structure.

In the long run, you cannot have one without the other. Organizational learning initiatives, such as new training programs or new interventions,
will “die on the vine” if a learning organization fails to support them. Likewise, simply claiming to be a learning organization is not enough; if no
organizational learning is occurring inside, the house will implode.

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization

As Figure 8.6 illustrates, organizational learning and the learning organization are not meant to be synonymous. In a transfer context, organizational learning is a
process that includes training transfer (Dermol & Cater, 2013). Within the process of organizational learning, training transfer is facilitated by organizational
members who are committed to sharing, dialoguing, and problem solving. The learning organization is the structure—built on personal mastery, mental models,
shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking—where those processes can take place (Gorelick, 2005; Senge, 1990, 2010).

Figure 8.6: The learning organization and organizational
learning

HRD in Practice: Effectively Trained … Doughnuts!

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 15/19

As the last employee left the room, Jason began to review the workshop evaluations; he suspected it was a hit.

“Yes! All 4s and 5s!” He smiled. “Good deal.” Jason gathered up the evaluations; he then energetically walked to the of�ice of his supervisor, Bob
Haskin.

“Bob?”

“Hey Jas … come on in, how’d the training go?”

“It went great, man … just skimming through the evaluations. Mostly 4s out of 5—even some 5s out of 5! They loved it! All the jokes worked, and
thankfully, the air-conditioning came on today!” Jason said, snickering.

“Never mind that—did they like the doughnuts and coffee?” Bob chuckled.

“I think so! Not one doughnut survived!”

“Well, good job, Jason. Now we can check off Sexual Harassment Training from this year’s training list. Only four more subjects to go. Remember,
if we don’t use these funds, we lose ’em! What is the next topic again?”

“Team building,” Jason con�idently replied.

“Great. Make sure you order extra doughnuts!” Bob and Jason shared a laugh and a high �ive.

Consider This

1. Is Bob Haskin’s comment regarding receiving training funds—if we do not use them, we lose them—unreasonable?
2. In what way is Jason being short-sighted regarding the success of the training today?
3. Given Jason’s focus on the training amenities, what do you think he would have done if the ratings were 2s and 3s instead of 4s and 5s?

1/15/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch08,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=all&clientToken=08… 16/19

Summary and Resources
Chapter Summary

The framework for training transfer includes describing the trainee characteristics of willingness and ability, as well as considering the training design
and work environment. Within the training design, two particular theories of transfer are the theories of identical elements and cognitive theory. Overall,
assessment of training transfer can be de�ined as positive, negative, or zero.
Determining who is responsible for training transfer, the so-called level 3, is important. Some point out that responsibility for transfer is based on a team
effort, including the trainee, trainer, and supervisor; others believe that although many variables in�luence transfer, �inal accountability should lie with the
trainer.
Understanding and managing the barriers to training transfer is important, and lack of reinforcement is usually the number one barrier to transfer. Using
the change management framework of force-�ield analysis assists in organizing the driving and restraining forces of transfer
Studies have shown that a learning organization culture predicts a positive learning transfer climate and, particularly, that a learning organization—
through the transfer of training—improves its overall performance outcomes and facilitates an organization’s competitive advantage. A learning
organization is thought to be more effective in training transfer because it moves beyond simple employee training into organizational problem solving,
innovation, and learning.

Assess Your Learning: Critical Re�lection

1. Explain how zero transfer may be the combined outcome of positive and negative transfer in a training setting.
2. Describe speci�ic scenarios in which a trainee has learned something (level 2) but is unwilling to apply it to the workplace (level 3). What can be done about
a trainee dynamic of able but not willing?

3. Explain the idea that an organization cannot just claim it is a learning organization; it must operate in speci�ic ways. Give examples of what organizations
must do.

4. Give examples of near and far transfer. In what ways can near transfer compromise far transfer? Does it matter if this happens?
5. What is meant by the concept of the trainer being necessary and/or suf�icient for transfer to occur?
6. What would be an example of converting a restraining force to a driving force as it relates to training transfer?
7. Explain how unconscious competence (automaticity) facilitates near transfer.

Additional Resources

Web Resources

For more reading on the transfer solutions in transfer of learning background:
http://ucs�hr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_learning_a_guide_for_strengtheningsupervisory_performance
(http://ucs�hr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_learning_a_guide_for_strengtheningsupervisory_performance)

For more information on self-directed learning:
www.selfdirectedlearning.org (http://www.selfdirectedlearning.org)

For more explanation of error detecting and correcting in organizational learning by Chris Argyris:
http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations/ar/1 (http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations/ar/1)

For more information on Peter Senge’s learning organization:
http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization (http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization) and
http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/cdocuments-and-settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org (http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/cdocuments-and-
settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org)

For information on types of transfer—near versus far, high road versus low road, and others:
http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/de�initions_of_trasfer.htm (http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/de�initions_of_trasfer.htm) and
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexamp.html (http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexamp.html)

More on cognitive theory of transfer:
http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.html (http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.html)

For more on Robert Gagné’s classic nine events of instruction:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_step_id.html (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_step_id.html)

For more on transfer of training:
http://www.silega.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=82 (http://www.silega.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=82)

For Kurt Lewin’s force-�ield analysis:
http://www.change-management-coach.com/force-�ield-analysis.html (http://www.change-management-coach.com/force-�ield-analysis.html)