The Danger of a Negative Transfer of Learning Climate

The following is my summary of a research paper entitled:

Change, Transfer Climate and Customer Orientation: A Contextual Model and Analysis of Change-driven Training.

This is one of the early research studies that alerted me to the risks of not addressing on-the-job application of learning and its support as part of training design, delivery and evaluation.

NOTE: In the research paper, "training" refers to off-the-job learning events and "transfer" is the post-training application of new learning in the flow of work.

Introduction

The findings of this research are based on survey data collected from 909 employees working in seven departments (engineering, police support, city services, water, streets, parks, and libraries) of a municipality in the southwestern United States.

The municipality had implemented a Total Quality (TQ) program called ‘Commitment to Quality’. Employees were encouraged to attend six TQ training workshops, interspersed with follow-up sessions conducted by trained departmental facilitators. The major aim of the training was to improve teamwork, sensitivity to citizens’ needs and customer service/satisfaction. The topics covered included team building, problem solving, communication skills, conflict resolution, and continuous improvement. After the follow-up sessions, which focused on application of the training, implementation was up to the work groups and their supervisors. Of the employees surveyed, 564 had completed or were involved in the training.

Research Model

The researchers propose a ‘contextual model’, which posits that transfer of learning from training to the workplace is influenced by contextual factors, one of which is the transfer climate. Also, that this climate is influenced by the other contextual factors. The relevance is that “a contextual analysis seeks to help trainers pinpoint areas outside of training that require strategic focus.”

The following research model was developed. As shown, the focus of the study was on the relationship between the contextual factors and ‘customer orientation’ (a measure that was chosen because of its relevance to the application of the TQ training).

Structural Factors

Employees were asked to rate how many hours in a typical 8-hour day they spend working with the public, working with information and working in a group. Other information, such as department name and number of employees supervised (if applicable) was also obtained.

Change and Stress Climate

Comprised three measures:

ROLE AMBIGUITY

Employees were asked to rate six statements regarding lack of being informed, ambiguity of work responsibilities and lack of clarity about decision-making authority (five point scale, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’).

NEGATIVE CHANGES

Employees were asked to rate five areas as improving or worsening over the last one to three years (seven point scale labelled ‘much improved (1), no change (4), much worse (7)). The areas were: training and resources to keep up with new technology, pay raises, level of trust and communication, relationship with supervisors, and job satisfaction.

JOB STRESS

Employees were asked to rate seven statements, three regarding frequency of job stress and four regarding role overload (five point scale, from ‘never’ to ‘always’). Examples: “How often do you feel stress as a result of your job?” and “The amount of work I have to do keeps me from doing a good job.”

Transfer Climate

This refers to “factors – identifiable by employees – that specifically help or hurt their work group’s use of training.” Trained employees were asked to what extent any of the following factors either blocked or helped them apply TQ ideas or tools in their primary work groups:

• Supervisors, their attitudes, or ways of doing things.
• Co-workers, their attitudes, or ways of doing things.
• Workload.
• Policies or procedures in your department (including performance evaluations, communication method, record keeping).

(Five point scale, from ‘blocked much’ to ‘helped much’.)

Customer Orientation

This was measured by asking employees to rate four statements regarding whether they (a) follow up with customers to see if services meet their expectations, (b) treat other employees as customers, (c) change things to make customers happier, and (d) have the citizens’ best interests at heart.

Validity Check

As a validity check of the transfer climate and customer orientation measures, employees were asked to rate four statements regarding their commitment to applying TQ, their general use of what was learned, and the extent to which the training had resulted in improved teamwork and customer service (five point scale, from ‘none’ to ‘very much’).

Key Findings

Change and Stress Climate

Customer orientation was negatively correlated with change and stress climate (strongly with role ambiguity and to a lesser extent with negative changes). Employees who reported higher customer orientation were more likely to report less role ambiguity and negative changes. There was no relationship to job stress.

Transfer Climate

Customer orientation was positively correlated with transfer climate and was higher for employees reporting a more positive transfer climate (i.e. for those who felt helped). The same employees were also more likely to report that teamwork and customer service had improved.

Of particular significance is the fact that employees who reported a negative transfer climate (i.e. those who felt blocked) also reported significantly lower customer orientation than employees who never attended the training.

Implications

An implication for trainers is the need to positively influence transfer by operating as change agents.?An important skill in this regard is role negotiation.?The findings suggest that trainers should look for instances where trainees are confused about their work roles (role ambiguity).

?The authors give the following recommendations to managers involved in change-oriented activities:

1. Conduct a careful assessment of transfer climate both before and soon after implementing a new training program or OD intervention.
2. Take a broader perspective and view the climate of training transfer as providing critical information about the vitality of one’s organization.
3. Serve as a model of someone who is willing to identify barriers to change and who accepts uncertainty and ambiguity as a way of organizational life.
4. Mobilize and integrate human resource practices to help managers and reinforce the transfer climate at an individual or group level.

All these recommendations are pertinent to training/learning specialists.

Reference

Joel E. Bennett, Wayne E. K. Lehman & Jamie K. Forst. Change, Transfer Climate and Customer Orientation: A Contextual Model and Analysis of Change-Driven Training. Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 1999, pp. 188-216.

Full text available at ResearchGate [link ]

Addendum (2024)

Since I wrote this summary, my research has shown that transfer is another phase of learning that is essential to achieving performance objectives. It (a) happens on the job (in the flow of work), (b) involves learning from application (experience), and (c) is initiated and regulated by the learner.

Since the on-the-job 'transfer' phase involves learning and is crucial to training effectiveness, my contention is that it should be incorporated in training programs. The meaning of "training" as used in the research paper is too narrow. We need to broaden the concept to include on-the-job learning and progression to targeted performance.

My research has also shown that the helping and hindering forces that comprise the 'transfer climate' are basically the same forces that influence on-the-job learning. As L&D specialists, we need to be concerned about the 'on-the-job learning climate' (or workflow learning climate), since the forces involved play a major role in training effectiveness.

Author

Throughout my L&D career I have continuously researched and experimented with ways to increase learning effectiveness. Along the way I have immersed myself in the 'science of learning' and the 'science of instruction' and have learned from successes and failures.

I know from experience that training can be very powerful if appropriate and implemented properly, which means addressing both drivers in the Training Effectiveness Equation . I have personally been involved in designing and implementing training programs that consistently produced an ROI in excess of 100%.

Over the last 20+ years I have successfully delivered many professional development programs for learning specialists. I have also created and delivered programs to help managers get better results from employee development.

My programs are based on the Predictable Performance Design Methodology and implemented according to the Ready-Set-Go-Show Model . Thanks to the model, I won a Gold Award at LearnX in the category Best Learning Model: Custom/Bespoke. Check out my article: Ready-Set-Go-Show Wins Gold .

If you would like to chat about my research or how I can help you, please email me at [email protected] .