GROUPet&al.

Bennett ORGANIZATION
/ CHANGE, TRANSFER
MANAGEMENT
CLIMATE, TRAINING

Change, Transfer Climate,

and Customer Orientation
A CONTEXTUAL MODEL AND ANALYSIS
OF CHANGE-DRIVEN TRAINING

JOEL B. BENNETT
Institute of Behavioral Research
WAYNE E. K. LEHMAN
Texas Christian University
JAMIE K. FORST
Rolls Royce PLC, Allison Engine Corporation

The success of large-scale or “paradigm change” training programs often hinge on work climate
factors that support transfer of training. Focus groups (N = 70) and survey data from both trained
(N = 564) and untrained (N = 345) municipal employees were used to assess perceptions related
to change (e.g., role ambiguity) and transfer climate that constrained or facilitated their use of
Total Quality (TQ) training. Employees who felt blocked from applying training reported sig-
nificantly less customer orientation than untrained employees, whereas those reporting a helpful
transfer climate reported significantly more customer orientation than the untrained group.
Regression analyses suggested that controlling for contextual factors (e.g., department affilia-
tion), both a change and stress climate and, to a lesser extent, transfer climate (e.g., supervisor
and coworker support) predicted customer orientation. Results have implications for organiza-
tional development practitioners and managers who seek to improve transfer of training in the
midst of organizational change and stress.

Many organizations introduce new training programs while exposing

employees to significant and sometimes radical changes in work
processes—through downsizing, structural redesign, or reengineering (Beer,
Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990). Consequently, employees attempt to transfer

The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) Grant DA04390 to Wayne E. K. Lehman and
D. Dwayne Simpson supported preparation of this work. However, the interpretations and con-
clusions do not necessarily represent the position of NIDA or the U.S. Department of Human
Services.
Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, June 1999 188-216
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
188
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 189

skills they have learned in training settings into a work environment charac-
terized by turbulence and ambiguity. Problems with transfer have become
particularly apparent in management programs that attempt “large-scale,”
“total,” or “paradigm” changes in customer orientation (Reger, Gustafson,
Demarie, & Mullane, 1994; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996; Troy, 1996).
Case studies show that employees trained in programs such as Total Quality
(TQ) often fail to adopt this orientation because of resistance to change, man-
agement failure to articulate clear objectives, and little reward for on-the-job
use of new skills (Blackburn & Rosen, 1996; Crofton & Dale, 1996; Johnson,
1993; Rago, 1996). The cost of such failure is not minimal. Depending on the
industry, between 60% to 90% of U.S. companies adopt some form of TQ
(Liam, 1993), and recent national surveys suggest that at least 50% of organi-
zations continue to use formal training in quality, business practices, or cus-
tomer service (Bassi & Van Buren, 1998; Frazis, Herz, & Horrigan, 1995).
Although extensive, these training efforts—and the barriers to their
success—have not received much empirical analysis (see review by
Hackman & Wageman, 1995).
Although training consultants have developed strategies to address barri-
ers to effective training transfer (Broad & Newstrom, 1992), researchers are
just beginning to examine employee perceptions of these barriers. The con-
struct of transfer climate (Goldstein, 1993) refers to those organizational sup-
ports and constraints that influence whether employees take what they have
learned in one environment (training situation) and actually use it in another
environment (on the job). Conceptual and operational definitions of transfer
climate are evolving still, but the construct has roots in traditional training
concepts. For example, early writers described the “probability of transfer”
(Wexley & Latham, 1980) and showed that learning depends on context
(Adams, 1967). Broad and Newstrom (1992) developed taxonomy for identi-
fying “barriers to transfer” and “transfer strategies” to address such barriers.
More recently, Kozlowski and Salas (1997) explain how transfer occurs both
horizontally (across settings), from the training to the work environment, as
well as vertically (across levels), from the individual to the organization.
However, researchers have just begun psychometric assessment of transfer
climate (Holton, Bates, Seyler, & Carvalho, 1997; Rouiller & Goldstein,
1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995).
Analysis of transfer climate is particularly important in change-oriented
interventions that seek to create a climate of continuous learning, one that
helps organizations meet changing market and customer requirements.
Although research suggests that supports for transfer help employees use
training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988), it is not known when such support may out-
weigh the negative impact of stress and turbulence. Thus, as part of a needs
190 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

analysis, assessment of transfer climate even before designing training

should help trainers face obstacles in transforming the traditional (and often
peripheral) training function into a more central part of continuous improve-
ment efforts (Johnson, 1993; Shandler, 1996). In fact, recent case studies
reveal trainers are placing an increased emphasis on climate surrounding
transfer (Broad, 1997).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The study of change climate and transfer climate also has theoretical sig-
nificance. Traditional views of training evaluation (Goldstein, 1993, Chap. 6;
Kirkpatrick, 1996), often are based on an experimental, unicausal view of
training as the sole predictor of relevant change in employee attitudes or
behavior. That is, the focus is on establishing a linkage between the training
and some criteria related to engagement of training principles and use of
learned skills in the work environment (see Figure 1, top). In this view, the
ideal is to demonstrate that bottom-line organizational results (e.g., reduced
costs) can be directly attributed to the training intervention (Level 4 analysis,
see Kirkpatrick, 1996). To do this well requires a classical training effective-
ness study, that is, random assignment of employees to trained and not trained
groups, and both pre- and posttraining assessment of the criteria (Arvey &
Cole, 1989). Contextual factors are either ignored or treated as control
variables.
Although this type of study is rarely done due to cost and difficulty, it still
is held as the ideal. As a result, change agents rarely subject their ideas to
empirical tests. Plans or schemes for organizational change are shaped
almost entirely by ideology and by management fad, according to those who
advocate the intervention (Macy & Izumi, 1993). Principles and guidelines
are needed that bring theory, research, and practice into greater alignment
(Salas, Cannon-Bowers, & Blickensderfer, 1997). Rather than repeatedly
appeal only to ideology, practitioners in organizational development (OD)
also should be able to continually clarify, test, and refine their suppositions.
This article proposes a contextual model that takes a broader view and
complements traditional training analysis. This view synthesizes recent theo-
retical writings about the transfer environment (Broad, 1997; Ford &
Weissbein, 1997; Holton et al., 1997; Kozlowski & Salas, 1997). It argues
that transfer climate, although critical, is only one of several contextual fac-
tors that help determine the outcome of any training. As described above,
employee training has increasingly become a key component of a larger
effort to change the organizational paradigm or way of doing business (i.e.,
context). In the proposed contextual model, the ideal is to track all those
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 191

Figure 1: The Traditional and Research Models

NOTE: The top figure shows the traditional model of training analysis described in the text. The
bottom figure shows the research model used in the current study. This model depicts relation-
ships between contextual factors (predictors) and training-relevant criterion: customer orienta-
tion. Items indicated in italics refer to specific operational measures used to test hypotheses.

factors that facilitate and constrain transfer over time and to determine the
extent to which each of these factors influence transfer. Thus, instead of
establishing one-to-one linkage between training and application, a contex-
tual analysis seeks to help trainers pinpoint areas outside of training that
require strategic focus. As defined here, contextual factors refer to broader or
distal situations that shape the more specific transfer climate. In contrast,
transfer climate refers to factors—identifiable by employees—that specifi-
cally help or hurt their work group’s use of training.
Contextual factors include, but are not limited to, structural factors (e.g.,
job technology and alignment between group, departmental, and organiza-
tional goals), enabling factors (e.g., leadership, teamwork, ongoing
192 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

monitoring, and responsiveness throughout the change effort), and broad cli-
mate factors (e.g., resistance to change, stress, ambiguity). For example,
although TQ programs imply widespread implementation, departmental or
divisional differences exist; leadership at these levels has been found to be a
critical factor in TQ success. Jobs may also differ in the opportunities they
provide for implementation (e.g., variation in face-to-face interaction with
customers). In addition, a climate of change and stress, although often stimu-
lated by the change effort, may compromise effective transfer of new skills
learned in training.
To be clear, this is not a model of training effectiveness—which focuses
on training as the antecedent of outcomes. Rather, it is a model of training
transfer—which focuses on those conditions that influence employee and
work group transfer of skills from training to the work environment. As a
result, research goals highlight the explanation of variance in the criteria and
on accounting for those factors that enhance this explanation. One key
hypothesis of the contextual model is that employees who are trained will be
more likely to show evidence on some training-relevant criterion when trans-
fer climate is more supportive (even after controlling for departmental and
other climate factors). Thus, the issue is not whether trained employees per-
form better than untrained employees; rather, it is whether trained employees
do better as a function of the transfer climate. In fact, trained employees who
lack supporting strategic and structural changes may perform worse than
those not trained. This may be because their expectations are raised, and the
dissonance between ideals and reality add to their stress, interfering with
motivation and productivity.

THE CURRENT STUDY

The central purpose of the current field study was to examine the relation-
ship between transfer climate and a criterion relevant to training transfer in
the research site. The site had implemented what administrators termed a
“commitment to quality” program, which had the ultimate goal of improving
customer service through use of quality principles and team work. Thus, our
main criterion was self-reports of customer orientation as a common work
process. This definition of customer orientation follows studies that use
employee reports of service quality and customer satisfaction (e.g., Saxe &
Weitz, 1982; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998).
To begin assessing the contextual model (as outlined in the preceding sec-
tion), the current study sought to answer two broad questions. First, what
influence do various contextual factors, specifically a climate of change and
stress, have on employees’ perceptions of customer orientation as a common
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 193

work process? This question addresses the issue raised earlier; namely, that
change and turbulence often compromise broad change-oriented interven-
tions. Second, what influence does transfer climate have on such customer
focus, independent of broader contextual factors? We hope to show that even
under conditions of turbulence, transfer climate will still correlate with crite-
ria. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used to answer these ques-
tions in a municipal organization that was in the midst of a quality initiative.
Qualitative data came from in-depth interviews with department heads and
training personnel and with employee focus groups. Quantitative data was
obtained from an employee survey.
To clarify and operationalize the relationship between context and cus-
tomer orientation, we developed a research model that follows from the con-
textual theory. The model presented in Figure 1 (bottom) depicts the relation-
ship between customer orientation and three predictors: pretraining or
structural factors (e.g., departments), a climate of change and stress, and
transfer climate. It also organizes contextual factors along a continuum of
proximal to distal influence. Proximal refers to factors in the immediate work
environment that employees most identified as constraining or facilitating
training-relevant behavior (i.e., customer sensitivity). For the prediction of
customer orientation, the most proximal factor would be transfer climate.
Distal refers to background factors that are relatively independent of training.
In the current model, department affiliation and job features were viewed as
distal factors.

TQ transfer climate. Synthesizing previous ideas (e.g., Broad & New-

strom, 1992; Goldstein, 1993), we defined transfer climate as employee per-
ceptions of factors they identified as specifically helping or hurting work
group use of training. Focus groups in the current study suggested that the
attitudes of supervisors and coworkers toward TQ practices strongly influ-
enced individual engagement of TQ. In fact, employee attitudes have been
found to play an important role in any TQ effort (Procopio & Fairfield-Sonn,
1996; Riordan & Gatewood, 1996). Focus groups also explained that work-
load and policies sometimes constrained or facilitated their use of TQ.

Climate of change and stress. In the organization we studied, employees

made comments about job stress, strong reactions to changes in various areas
(e.g., technology, pay), and perceptions about the relative clarity or ambigu-
ity of changing roles. These factors appeared to comprise a climate of change
and stress that transpired regardless of employees’ level of TQ training. Sen-
sitivity to customers should be less under conditions of high stress, ambigu-
ity, and negative changes.
194 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Of relevance to this hypothesis are findings that show less customer orien-
tation among employees who report greater role ambiguity (Siguaw, Brown, &
Widing, 1994; Tadepalli, 1991). The current analysis used extant role ambi-
guity and job stress measures, along with measures derived from focus
groups, to assess a climate of change and stress. The model in Figure 1 sug-
gests that transfer climate would help explain customer orientation even after
controlling for perceptions of stress, change, and ambiguity.

Structural (pretraining) factors. Research indicates that pretraining or

structural factors also may influence training outcomes (Baldwin &
Magjuka, 1997). In the organization under study, different departments and
certain job types were more likely to receive or use training than were others.
Thus, we examined both department affiliation and job features as having an
influence on criteria before the influence of other factors (e.g., change and
stress).

Hypotheses. Hypotheses are based on a contextual model of training

transfer rather than on an experimental model of training effectiveness. Thus,
comparisons of trained and untrained employees were done with the intent of
showing that a positive transfer climate is critical for trained employees to
show increased benefits over untrained employees. We distinguished three
hypotheses.1
Hypothesis 1: Employee customer orientation should be highest for trained
employees who report a positive climate. Moreover, trained employees who
report an unhelpful transfer climate may report less customer orientation than
those not trained.

As stated, this hypothesis ignores factors outlined in the contextual model.

The remaining hypotheses examine the influence of these factors.
Specifically,

Hypothesis 2: Customer orientation will be predicted by different contextual fac-

tors (structural and climate). In particular, a climate of stress and change will be
inversely associated with customer orientation; this climate-criterion relation-
ship should hold after controlling for structural factors.
Hypothesis 3: Transfer climate will add significant variance to the prediction of
customer focus beyond that explained by structural and climate factors.

A NOTE ON TRAINING ENGAGEMENT AND VALIDITY

Trainers in the current study also emphasized that achieving the goal of
improved customer service would depend on engagement, that is,
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 195

employees’ commitment to and application of quality principles as well as

their cooperation and team work. In fact, previous research shows that
employee engagement (their efforts to apply training) is greater in supportive
organizational climates (Baldwin & Ford, 1988) and that engagement of
work systems such as TQ appears related to actual productivity (Bassi & Van
Buren, 1997). In keeping with previous research, we also examined the rela-
tionship between TQ engagement and both transfer climate and customer ori-
entation. We specifically used engagement as a check on the validity of these
measures. That is, we predict that engagement (a) will be greater under con-
ditions of a positive transfer climate, and (b) will predict customer orienta-
tion. Most important, these relationships should hold after controlling for
other contextual factors.

METHOD

The municipality under study, located in the southwestern United States,

is not unique in its attempt to reinvent service delivery through TQ. West and
colleagues (Berman & West, 1995; West, Berman, & Milakovich, 1994) have
shown how many local governments are experimenting with TQ to enhance
service delivery. The survey was conducted while the city was in the midst of
TQ programming and represents a snapshot during a particularly important
time of organizational change. The research project consisted of four distinct
components: (a) interviews with training personnel to gain information about
training content and design, (b) department head and focus group interviews,
(c) survey administration and analysis, and (d) comparison of survey and
interview data for areas of convergence.

THE COMMITMENT TO TQ TRAINING

Some departmental divisions completed training 6 months or more prior

to interviews. Within departments, employees had various levels of training
and were in various stages of implementation. More than half the employees
had completed training at the time of the study.

Basic training. Employees were encouraged to attend six basic training

and follow-up sessions. These involved intact work groups or included
employees from different groups drawn from various areas within a city
department. In order, the session topics were (a) introduction to team build-
ing and problem solving, (b) field experience—ropes course: application of
team skills, (c) mission statements, goals, and expectations, (d)
196 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

communication skills/conflict resolution, (e) meeting management skills,

and (f) quality concepts—continuous improvement & process analysis. The
main objective of these sessions was to help employees find ways to work
together as a team or a group—and ultimately as a department—to become
more sensitive to citizens’ needs and improve customer satisfaction. Each of
the six sessions provided training in communication and cooperation skills
and—through follow-up sessions—practice opportunities so that these skills
would be used to improve customer satisfaction. As a result of training, work
groups in some departments met regularly to develop action plans for the
implementation of newly learned skills and came up with solutions to prob-
lems reported by citizens.

Follow-up sessions. Follow-up sessions were an integral part of training

and were done primarily with intact work groups. For many departments,
employees who were trained departmental facilitators conducted these
follow-ups. TQ facilitators attended 1 full week of training beyond the basic
six sessions. Follow-ups were held before each subsequent session, with time
between session and follow-up ranging from 1 to 3 weeks. In follow-ups,
facilitators helped groups propose specific applications of concepts, provid-
ing them with the tools and goals to help realize those applications. After
follow-up sessions, however, applications were entirely in the hands of work
groups and supervisors. In keeping with an empowerment philosophy, train-
ers emphasized the importance of personal commitment rather than adminis-
trative mandate when applying TQ. Facilitators had no further responsibility
for encouraging, monitoring, or evaluating implementation.

FOCUS GROUPS

The focus groups were designed using methods outlined by Krueger

(1994) to elicit views about changes that occurred in the city over 3 years
(1992-1995). We first conducted detailed, structured interviews with depart-
ment heads from the seven largest city departments: engineering, police sup-
port (e.g., record keeping, communications), city services, water, streets,
parks, and libraries. We asked them to select focus group participants who
would be willing to candidly discuss issues, come from different work
groups, and represent different view points. Eight focus groups—with two
groups from police support—were conducted with 70 employees (6 to 11
individuals per group). Employees were told that their comments would help
in the design of a citywide survey on change and were assured that informa-
tion would be kept confidential. Focus groups lasted about 2 hours and were
conducted as open-ended discussions about changes that affected employees
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 197

in a positive or negative direction. Comments in interviews and focus groups

were used for three purposes: (a) assess attitudes toward and actual use of
training, (b) develop survey items sensitive to contextual factors of relevance
to employee use of training, and (c) collect qualitative data on departmental
differences in climate and training.

SURVEY SUBJECTS

Within the seven departments, 87 work groups—representing 937

employees from all occupational classifications—were randomly selected to
participate. A total of 909 employees completed usable surveys, resulting in a
participation rate of 97%. The training sample consisted of 564 individuals
who indicated completion or current involvement in training and who had no
missing data for regression analyses. The proportion of individuals trained
varied across departments, χ2(6, 909) = 134.10, p < .001. From most to least
trained, these were engineering (N = 100, with 83% trained), police support
(148, 82%), city services (68, 66%), water (287, 64%), streets (116, 62%),
parks (105, 34%), and libraries (85, 23%). Table 1 displays other demo-
graphic distributions for the training sample and also for employees who had
not received any training (N = 345). The training sample consisted of older,
more educated, and more Anglo employees. Trained employees were also
more apt to be supervisors, interact with the public, and work with informa-
tion. Within the training sample, the majority had completed all training ses-
sions (83%), and more than two thirds reported that more than 60% of their
coworkers completed training. For regression analyses, training participation
versus nonparticipation was dummy coded (0 = untrained, 1 = trained).

SURVEY PROCEDURE

Surveys were administered by research staff to employees of randomly

selected work groups during working hours. All responses were anonymous
and confidential, and participation was voluntary. The following synopsis of
variables provides statistical information (e.g., alphas) for employees who
had complete data for regression analyses.

PREDICTOR VARIABLES

TQ transfer climate. This measure, only completed by trained employees,

asked, “To what extent have any of the following factors either blocked or
helped workers apply TQ ideas or tools in your primary work group?”
Employees assessed four factors: (a) “supervisors, their attitudes, or ways of
198 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

TABLE 1
Demographic Profile of Sample:
Trained Employees Compared to Others

Characteristic N % Not Trained (N = 345) % Trained (N = 564)

Personal background
Male 604 63 69
Married 560 59 65
Age *
Less than 30 181 24 17
30 to 40 317 34 35
Greater than 40 411 42 47
Education ***
Less than high school 126 20 10
High school 218 26 23
Some college or degree 565 54 67
Race ***
Anglo-American 493 51 62
Afro-American 214 26 24
Mexican American 150 24 14
Job background
Supervisor 162 10 22***
Job activity (> 4 hours daily)
Interacts with public 647 67 69
Works with information 554 50 68***
Works in group 780 85 84

NOTE: Statistical comparisons performed with chi-square analysis.

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

doing things,” (b) “co-workers, their attitudes, or ways of doing things,”

(c) “workload,” and (d) “policies or procedures in your department
(including performance evaluations, communication methods, record keep-
ing).” Responses used a 5-point scale (blocked much, blocked some, had no
effect, helped some, helped much). Interitem correlations ranged from .42 to
.59. These items were averaged into a single measure with good internal con-
sistency (α = .80). To conduct mean comparisons, percentile cutoffs were
used to classify employees into one of three groups. These groups were
blocked (< 33rd percentile, M = 1.97), neutral or no effect (between 33rd and
66th, M = 2.99), and helped (> 66th percentile, M = 3.92). For regression
analyses, contrast variables were created to compare each of the three trans-
fer climate groups with the untrained group. For example, the untrained sam-
ple (always coded as –1), was contrasted with the blocked transfer group (1),
whereas the neutral and helped groups were coded as zero.
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 199

Change and stress climate.2 A measure of role ambiguity consisted of six

items and used a 5-point response format (strongly disagree to strongly
agree). Items assessed employees’ lack of being informed, ambiguity sur-
rounding work responsibilities, and the lack of clarity about who has the
authority to make decisions (House & Rizzo, 1972). These items were aver-
aged into a single measure with good internal consistency (α = .72). The
Negative Changes scale was specifically designed from focus group feed-
back and asked employees to rate five areas as improving or worsening
within the past 1 to 3 years. Responses used a 7-point scale, labeled as much
improved (1), no change (4), and much worse (7). The areas included training
and resources to keep up with new technology, pay raises, level of trust and
communication, relationship with supervisors, and job satisfaction. Reliabil-
ity, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was high for this measure (α = .78). Job
stress used three items asking about frequency of job stress (on a 5-point
scale; never to always) and four items assessing role overload. An example
of stress item was “How often do you feel stress as a result of your job,”
and an example role overload item was “The amount of work I have to do
keeps me from doing a good job” (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal,
1964). These items were averaged into a single measure, with good reliability
(α = .80).

Structural factors. Employees’ department affiliation was dummy coded

for regression analyses. Items assessing job features used the following stem:
“In the day-to-day activities of your job, how many hours of a typical 8-hour
day do you do the following?” Responses were made on a 6-point scale
(1 = None, 2 = Less than 1 hour, 3 = 1 to 2 hours, 4 = 3 to 4 hours, 5 = 5 to
6 hours, 6 = 7 to 8 hours). Employees rated their work with the public (i.e.,
communicating face-to-face or on the phone with the public), work with
information (i.e., information systems such as computers, record keeping,
typing, charts, and data), and work in a group (i.e., interacting with coworkers
to get work done as a group). Individuals were coded as supervisor (1 = no,
2 = yes) if they reported responsibility for overseeing and evaluating at least
two employees.

CRITERION: CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

This measure included four items adapted from a survey of service quality
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). Items asked employees “about how
your particular division or department responds to its customers.” For exam-
ple, “We follow up with customers to see if our services meet their expecta-
tions.” Other items asked if employees do the following: treat other
200 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

employees as customers, change things to make customers happier, or have

the citizens’ best interests at heart. These items were averaged into a single
measure with good internal consistency (α = .72).

VALIDITY CHECK: TQ ENGAGEMENT

For trained employees, four items assessed employees’ commitment to

TQ, their general use of TQ training, and their attributions that training led to
both the interim goal of increased teamwork and the ultimate goal of
increased customer service. Full descriptions of these items are shown in
Table 2. Item means in the table converge with qualitative data gleaned from
focus groups; namely, employees were more committed to TQ (M = 3.30)
than were using it (M = 2.94), t(560) = 8.61, p < .001. Although even fewer
employees had observed achievement of transfer goals, teamwork (M = 2.79)
was rated as improving due to training more so than was customer service
(M = 2.63), t(560) = 4.13, p < .001.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

To test the first hypothesis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to

examine mean differences in customer orientation at three levels of transfer
climate—blocked, no effect, or helped. This analysis also compares these
three groups with untrained employees.
As a test of the model described in Figure 1, hierarchical regression exam-
ined the relationship between predictors and customer orientation. The hier-
archical strategy assesses the degree to which variable domains of increas-
ingly proximal influence contribute to criterion variance once background
(or distal) factors are accounted for. The order of entry of variable domains
followed the distal-proximal order as described in the model.
The prediction of customer orientation included structural factors (depart-
ment affiliation, job features), followed by change and stress climate. The
next step of the regression included either a comparison of untrained and
trained employees or a comparison of untrained employees with trained
employees at three levels of transfer climate (dummy coded contrasts). We
also report the standardized β weights (and standard errors) with all predic-
tors entered, the total R2 for regression as each domain was added to the
model, the change in R2 (∆R2) associated with that added domain, the R2 for
each domain examined separately, and the unique contribution of that
domain to the overall R2. The unique R2 is determined by assessing the vari-
ance a domain adds to criterion after other variables are entered.
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 201

TABLE 2
Validity Check: Correlations of Total Quality (TQ) Engagement
Items With Transfer Climate and Customer Orientation

Transfer Customer
Climate Orientation
Partial Partial
a
Mean SD r r r r

Commitment to TQ
How much do you personally believe in 3.30 1.22 .24*** .11* .29*** .16***
and are committed to applying TQ
tools and principles?
Use of TQ
To what extent have you actually used 2.94 0.88 .33*** .26*** .27*** .14***
what you learned in TQ training
(information, tools, and techniques)?
Transfer goals: Team work
As a result of your TQ training, has 2.79 1.10 .43*** .31*** .33*** .13***
your communication, cooperation,
and team work with coworkers
improved?
Transfer goals: Customer service
As a result of using TQ training, how 2.63 1.08 .49*** .34*** .47*** .26***
much has your department improved
customer service?

NOTE: Responses to items were on a 5-point scale (1 = none, 2 = little, 3 = some, 4 = a lot, 5 =
very much).
a. Partial correlations control for departmental affiliation, job features, and change climate
variables.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

RESULTS

VALIDITY CHECK

As a way to check the validity of transfer climate and customer orientation

measures, trained employees were asked questions about their engagement
of the TQ training. Although a positive transfer climate certainly should
enhance acceptance of TQ, it also should enhance application and, most
important, the achievement of training goals. Results in Table 2 show that
controlling for other factors, those employees who experienced a more posi-
tive transfer climate were more likely to report that their work unit was meet-
ing the transfer goals of team work and customer service (rs = .31, .34). That
202 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

these relationships were stronger than with TQ commitment (r = .11) also

suggests that the measure of transfer climate reflects perceptions of actual
transfer (more so than employees’ general acceptance of the idea of TQ).
Correlations with customer orientation also support the validity of this mea-
sure. Specifically, customer orientation was associated more strongly with
perceptions that training led to improved customer service (r = .26) than to
improved team work (r = .13). In the absence of experimental or longitudinal
data, these discriminating findings provide some support that perceptions of
training transfer were meaningfully related to an enhanced customer
orientation.

TRANSFER CLIMATE AND CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

The first hypothesis examined the relationship between TQ transfer cli-

mate and customer orientation. Results of ANOVA comparisons, presented
in Table 3, revealed significant differences across three levels of transfer cli-
mate. Post hoc comparison of means indicated that customer orientation was
higher among employees reporting a more positive transfer climate. The
importance of transfer climate becomes clearer when the untrained sample is
included in this comparison. In fact, employees who felt blocked from apply-
ing TQ reported significantly less customer orientation (M = 3.09) than did
employees never exposed to training (M = 3.49). Moreover, employees
reporting a positive transfer climate reported significantly more customer
orientation (M = 3.83) than did the untrained group. There was no difference
between the untrained and the no-effect groups.
To control for contextual factors, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
examined the comparisons described in Table 3, except that structural, and
change and stress climate factors were included as covariates. ANCOVAs
replicated results reported. For example, the adjusted means for customer
orientation were higher among employees reporting a helpful transfer cli-
mate, as compared to other groups (ps < .05).

CORRELATIONS AND REGRESSION ANALYSES

Regression analyses assessed the conceptual model described above (see

Figure 1) and examined transfer climate and change and stress climate as
unique predictors of customer orientation. The correlation matrix is pre-
sented in Table 4. These correlations show that structural factors were differ-
entially associated with climate and training factors. For example, greater
stress or negative changes were associated with jobs involving interaction
with the public and employment in police supports. Less negative change was
 TABLE 3
Criterion Variables at Three Levels of Transfer Climate: Analysis of Variance

TQ Transfer Climate (trained employees only) Untrained

Blocked No Effect Helped Employees
(N = 196) (N = 187) (N = 181) (N = 327)
Criterion Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD F (df)

Customer orientation 3.09a .83 3.36b .68 3.83c .59 3.49b .79 32.86*** (3, 886)

NOTE: Means with different superscripts are significantly different at p < .05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference comparison.
***p < .001.
203
204 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

associated with supervisory jobs and information work as well as employ-

ment in parks, streets, and engineering. Also as predicted, customer orienta-
tion was negatively correlated with change and stress factors and was posi-
tively correlated with transfer climate.
Table 5 presents results from regression analyses and shows that variables
from all domains not including training factors accounted for 29.8% of the
variance in customer orientation; adding training to the regression equation
added an insignificant 0.1% of explained variance. However, addition of
training ⬰ transfer climate contrasts increased the variance accounted for to
31.5%. The increase in R2 was significant, although not very large. The
regression also shows that change and stress climate added significant vari-
ance over that explained by other factors. Change and stress climate added
22.7% of variance over and above structural factors and contributed 15.6%
unique variance to the prediction of customer orientation. Although transfer
climate contributed only 1.6% of unique variance, by itself, it accounted for
10.5% variance in customer orientation. Examination of significant
β weights suggests that employees who observe customer orientation as a
common work practice are more likely to report—in order of importance—
less role ambiguity (β = –.36), a helpful transfer climate (β = .19), less nega-
tive changes at work (β = –.12), and the absence of a blocking transfer climate
(β = –.09).

DISCUSSION

The current investigation examined the influence of transfer climate on

employees trained in a TQ program. This was not a study in training effec-
tiveness, which would require various controls (e.g., objective outcomes,
randomization, control groups) unavailable to us. Instead, we wished to
examine the influence of transfer climate (as part of a contextual model) on
employee perceptions of customer service sensitivity, improvement of which
was the ultimate goal of training. As survey scales formed the basis of analy-
sis, several observations about them are warranted.

KEY MEASURES

The transfer climate measure was derived through focus groups and was
worded to be sensitive to employee views. For example, employees made
comments such as “It all depends upon your supervisor; some say ‘TQ my
way or the highway,’ others are serious about empowering you.” In fact,
responses to one transfer climate item showed that employees were more
 TABLE 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Structural Factors
Department Affiliation
1. Parks 0.11 0.31 1.00
***
2. Water 0.30 0.46 –.23 1.00
3. Police support 0.17 0.37 –.16*** –.30*** 1.00
4. City services 0.07 0.26 –.10** –.19*** –.13*** 1.00
5. Streets 0.13 0.34 –.14*** –.26*** –.17*** –.11** 1.00
6. Engineering 0.11 0.32 –.13*** –.24*** –.16*** –.10** –.14*** 1.00
Job Features
7. Work with public 3.82 1.84 –.12*** –.14*** .33*** .06 –.11** –.13*** 1.00
8. Work with
information 3.60 1.98 –.18*** –.21*** .44*** –.08* –.24*** .02 .47*** 1.00
9. Work in group 4.49 1.56 –.13*** .14*** .10** –.05 –.05 –.16*** .31*** .23*** 1.00
10. Supervisor 1.18 0.39 .02 –.01 –.10** –.03 .09** –.02 .04 .02 .07* 1.00
Change or Stress Climate
11. Role ambiguity 2.63 0.70 –.02 .01 .07* .01 –.01 .03 .01 .01 –.10** –.15*** 1.00
12. Negative change 4.01 1.24 –.08* .07* .13*** .01 –.07* –.09* .08* .07* –.02 –.14*** .54*** 1.00
13. Job stress 2.97 0.73 .03 –.06 .19*** .00 –.09** –.02 .18*** .17*** .03 .12*** .34*** .32*** 1.00
Training Factors
14. In training 0.68 0.47 –.22*** .08* .18*** .03 –.01 .16*** –.03 .11** –.05 .14*** .07* .02 .12*** 1.00
15. Transfer climatea 2.93 0.86 .07 .04 –.11** –.10* .06 .03 –.07 –.12** .04 .07 –.49*** –.52*** –.31*** –– 1.00
Criterion
16. Customer orientation 3.43 0.78 .01 .09** –.19*** –.04 –.01 .05 .00 –.09** .07* .12*** –.47*** –.41*** –.19*** –.03 .46**

NOTE: N = 833 in multivariate analyses.

a. The correlations for Transfer Climate are based on the training sample only (N = 564).
205

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

206 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5
Regression of Structural, Stress Climate, and Training Factors:
Customer Orientation as Criterion

b SE R2 DR2 R2 of Block Unique R2

Structural Factors
Department Affiliation .048*** .048*** .030***
Parks –.17 .11
Water –.01 .09
Police support –.38 .10
City services –.24 .12
Streets –.22 .11
Engineering –.01 .11
Job Features .071*** .023*** .030*** .010*
Work with public .04 .01
Work with information –.03 .02
Work in group .01 .02
Supervisor .03 .06
Change and Stress Climate .298*** .227*** .257*** .156***
Role ambiguity –.36*** .04
Negative changes –.12* .02
Job stress .02 .04
Training Factors (added
independently)
In training .06 .06 .299*** .001 .001 .001
a
Training + Transfer Climate .315*** .017*** .105*** .016***
Contrast 1 (blocked) –.09* .04
Contrast 2 (neutral) –.06 .04
Contrast 3 (helped) .19*** .04

a. For each contrast, the untrained group (–1) was contrasted with one of the three transfer climate
levels (1) within the training group, with the other two levels coded as in between (0).
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

likely to indicate that supervisors had either helped (38%) or hurt (38%) than
had no effect on transfer (24%). The workload item also reflected such com-
ments as “Right now, we have too much on our plate; sometimes there is just
not enough time to do TQ right.” Correlation analyses showed that transfer
climate also varied with departments and job type in ways that reflect inter-
view data. Similarly, departmental differences in the climate scales con-
verged with qualitative findings (see Note 2), suggesting that measures of
stress, role ambiguity, and negative changes were tapping organizational
processes.
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 207

The measure of customer orientation also was designed to reflect a range

of behaviors related to training goals. These included treatment of other
employees, customer follow-up, improving work for customer satisfaction,
and interest in citizens. Consistent with interview data, supplemental analy-
ses showed that employees rated higher on these items if they had additional
TQ sessions or worked as a TQ crew leader. Although further validation of
the customer orientation measure is needed, initial findings indicate sound
reliability and meaningful relationships that converged with qualitative data
(see Table 2).

INTERPRETATION OF KEY RESULTS

According to current results, it seems clear that both climates of change

and transfer of training may have a significant impact on employees’ orienta-
tion toward customers. In support of Hypothesis 1, employees trained in TQ
reported greater customer orientation than did untrained employees only if
they worked in a helpful transfer climate. Trained employees who reported a
blocking transfer climate actually scored less on customer orientation than
did untrained employees. Importantly, these comparisons held up even after
controlling for other contextual variables. They suggest that a negative trans-
fer climate may significantly hinder quality practices, just as a positive cli-
mate may help. However, these findings do not indicate the extent to which
transfer climate predicts customer orientation once contextual factors are
considered.
In fact, transfer climate only accounted for about 2% of unique variance in
customer orientation. Although role ambiguity and negative changes contrib-
uted a majority of the variance to the prediction of customer orientation
(15%), the small contribution of transfer climate was still statistically signifi-
cant. This indicates that employees’ reactions to change and shifting role
clarity may outweigh but not necessarily eradicate the positive influence of
transfer climate. Importantly, a comparison of beta weights (β) shows that
transfer climate was a stronger predictor of customer orientation than were
negative changes or job stress. Analyses of contrasts also revealed that the
relative absence of a negative climate as well as the relative presence of a
positive climate were both significant predictors of customer orientation. By
itself, transfer climate also accounted for more than 10% of the variance in
customer orientation. Together, these results lend general support to
Hypotheses 2 and 3.
With this said, relationships between customer orientation and role ambi-
guity and negative changes were among the strongest findings in the current
study. The negative changes measure was developed directly from focus
208 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

groups. Although further research is needed to assess the validity of the nega-
tive changes measure, we believe it captures employee attitudes toward the
improvement or worsening of job conditions. Other findings suggest that
when examining the impact of stress on change-oriented training practices, it
may be important to distinguish between measures of felt job stress and dif-
ferent stressors, such as role ambiguity (see Jex, Beehr, & Roberts, 1992). For
example, customer orientation had the strongest relationship with role ambi-
guity but displayed no relationship to job stress. It is possible that training
transfer may be constrained more by role or environmental stressors than by
employees’ personal level of stress.
Regression results also point to structural factors as having important
influences on customer orientation. Departmental affiliation was important
to customer orientation; employees who worked in the department with the
most turbulence also reported less customer orientation. As suggested by
interview data, customer orientation may “flow from the top down”; depart-
ment heads’views of the change effort may be more important than any influ-
ence from training. Again, although structural variables were important,
results indicated that—beyond these factors—change and transfer climate
added significantly to the prediction of criteria.

STRENGTHS

The current investigation has a number of strengths that we believe out-

weigh the limitations imposed by use of survey methodology. First and most
important, current methods addressed the lack of adequate field studies of
TQ. According to Macy & Izumi (1993), “Employers, labor leaders, public
policy makers, professional change specialists, and social scientists draw
their views largely from theory, ideology, faith, or hope” (p. 238). In
response, we used a variety of methods to enhance our field approach. First,
as suggested by Jick (1979), we combined both qualitative and quantitative
methods. Moreover, focus groups helped us capture social or interpersonal
processes relevant to understanding work context, and they also aided the
development of key survey items. Second, using interviews and surveys, we
applied an organizational or contextual analysis (Goldstein, 1993;
Kozlowski & Salas, 1997) that attends to multiple (rather than singular) fac-
tors that could affect training. Third, the use of hierarchical regression
allowed us to pinpoint and control the predictive power of these various con-
textual factors.
The current study also goes beyond a merely exploratory analysis of
change-oriented training, specifically tests an empirical model of contextual
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 209

factors, and draws from the existing TQ or training literature to operational-

ize variables. Following Riordan and Gatewood (1996), we assumed that
successful customer focus in TQ depends not as much on individual employ-
ees but on the perceived climate of customer orientation within a work divi-
sion. Following Broad and Newstrom (1992), the current model also assessed
the influence of both pretraining (i.e., more distal) and posttraining (i.e.,
proximal) factors. The key challenge for trainers of TQ is to effectively align
training with organizational goals while overcoming problems of change
(Johnson, 1993; Shandler, 1996). The measures selected to assess these
problems—job stress, role ambiguity, reactions to change—directly relate to
the issues described by these trainers.

LIMITATIONS

Several limitations of this study involve the use of a survey measure at a

single point in time. Although focus group data were available to help under-
stand quantitative findings, both methods relied on self-report only and failed
to consider actual outcomes. Thus, relationships between predictors and cri-
teria could be inflated due to reliance on a single source of data (common
method variance). Similarly, because of pressures to make TQ work or look
good, employee reports may be subject to a social desirability bias. Future
research should rely on separate methods, such as asking customers to rate
their satisfaction with services or observing work groups. Other controls for
social desirability also could be employed (see Nederhof, 1985).
Another limitation involves sampling. Although employees were ran-
domly sampled for the survey, our designation of the training group was
entirely based on survey responses. At some point, all city employees were to
be trained in TQ, and the order in which they were trained was not random.
Some departments had greater interest or need than did others, and schedul-
ing factors constrained work group attendance at sessions. Thus, compari-
sons between trained and untrained employees cannot be used to draw con-
clusions about training or about the causal effects of transfer climate versus
training. A more valid assessment of transfer climate would randomly assign
groups to training and no training conditions and assess transfer climate
across multiple periods. In this way, researchers could determine whether
training has some causal relationship with outcomes and whether this rela-
tionship is direct or mediated by changes in the transfer climate over time.
As in many assessments of TQ, it is not clear whether results from a case
analysis will generalize to other organizations. However, based on a national
survey of TQ commitment in local government (Berman & West, 1995), the
210 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

current site appears similar to other city programs in its commitment to TQ.
Thus, although our results may not generalize to all change-oriented pro-
grams, current findings should have relevance to other municipal
organizations.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The climate of transfer of training may have an influence on training

related criteria that is significant beyond the influence of other departmental
or climate factors. Importantly, this conclusion is based on a conservative test
of transfer climate. In other words, the change in R2 (∆R2) statistic considers
variance between transfer climate and customer orientation that is not
already accounted for by other contextual variables in the model. Although
this test controls for contextual factors, it neglects other key TQ practices,
such as teamwork, continuous improvement, and empowerment (e.g., Fedor &
Ghosh, 1996). It also treats transfer climate as a unidimensional construct,
whereas recent research suggests it has several aspects (e.g., Holton et al.,
1997). A more comprehensive test of the contextual model would include a
wider range of TQ-related criteria and multidimensional assessment of trans-
fer climate.

Implications for trainers. Our findings have several implications for train-
ers and OD practitioners. Consistent with previous research, we found that
employees experiencing role ambiguity are less likely to report customer
focus. In Jones’s (1988) model of trainers as change agents, trainers facilitate
application of learning outside of the training environment by using four
skills: follow-up, project tutoring, on-the-job learning, and role negotiation.
Our results suggest that role negotiation may be critical to the success of
change-driven training. This skill requires trainers to identify confusion
about trainees’ work roles outside of training.
Trainers need to be particularly skilled in negotiating and clarifying their own
role vis-à-vis the line manager and ‘trainees’. Thus, acting as an example they
can help managers ask and face up to the appropriate questions about their own
roles. (p. 112)

These findings are also consistent with Reger et al.’s (1994) model of
change and organizational identity. These authors argue that change-oriented
programs often fail because they challenge assumptions about the organiza-
tion and roles within the organization. Thus, employees will be more likely to
accept changes when clear connections are made between the existing “core
organizational identity” and new initiatives. Culture change may be more
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 211

effective when change is neither so small that it fails to overcome resistance

or so great as to be overwhelming. Trainers, through skills in transfer man-
agement (Broad & Newstrom, 1992) and role negotiation, may help employ-
ees find the middle ground where TQ, with its challenges to role identity, are
more acceptable.

Recommendations for managers. Our findings lead us to make recom-

mendations for managers involved in change-oriented activities. We offer
these with the hope of fostering linkages (cf. “translation mechanism,” Salas
et al. 1997) between the contextual model advanced in this article, research,
training, and development-oriented management practices.
1. Conduct a careful assessment of transfer climate both before and soon after
implementing a new training program or OD intervention.

Strategic assessment of transfer climate can serve three vital functions: (a)
better align those teams unprepared for training, (b) garner supervisory and
managerial support for transfer, and (c) increase accountability from external
consultants and training vendors. To stay competitive, companies have
increased their investments in employee education and technical training
(Carnavale, 1995). However, as we learned from focus groups, training
efforts were often a poor investment in those work units that lacked initial
support or opportunity to use new skills. Through the use of pretraining trans-
fer strategies (Broad & Newstrom, 1992), managers can attend to a group’s
preparedness for training and can enhance training effectiveness. Also, fol-
lowing the logic of “what gets measured gets accomplished,” supervisors are
more apt to embrace the notion of transfer climate when they are measured on
the extent to which they behave in a manner that supports training transfer.
Careful and constructive communication of assessment results may remedy
training transfer gaps among employees, their manager, and the training staff
responsible for program delivery. Finally, internal training and development
practitioners could explain to external consultants or training vendors that
transfer climate will be measured shortly after training delivery. Hopefully,
this will encourage vendors to take a more active interest in their client’s
needs, before, during, and after training.

2. Take a broader perspective and view the climate of training transfer as provid-
ing critical information about the vitality of one’s organization.

Training is not only about enhancing performance and productivity, but it

also functions to socialize and network employees and to integrate business
212 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

operations. This is so especially in organizations that are “flatter” in struc-

ture, are team-based, and where employees may experience multiple report-
ing relationships, that is, “dotted” line managers and managers who have
multiple roles (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995). Thus, systematic and purposeful
attention to training transfer issues may influence employees to work more
interdependently and to function as a team. For example, the Saturn Corpora-
tion promotes an organization-wide training transfer plan that holds employ-
ees accountable for monitoring training transfer issues and actively men-
toring each other (Wall & White, 1997).

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.

Managers can mitigate against the negative effects of turbulence by how

they convey acceptance of change. Quinn (1996) describes how the newly
evolving and uncertain organizational environment requires leaders to “build
the bridge as you walk on it.” This involves the ability to view change as a
challenge, take risks, and directly confront, discuss, and handle problematic
reactions to uncertainty (e.g., job insecurity, threats to the existing balance of
power, and work group inertia—“We’ve always done it this way”). Through
reducing these barriers to change, training professionals are more likely to
facilitate effective training transfer and enhance the return from training dol-
lars spent. Following Quinn, we encourage manager’s attempts to inculcate
the philosophy that change, although painful, can be met with confidence and
vision.

4. Mobilize and integrate human resources practices to help manage and rein-
force the transfer climate at an individual and group level.

Training professionals should work closely with other human resources

(HR) professionals to ensure that various personnel systems actively rein-
force the use of training resources and transfer strategies. Allowance for mul-
tiple training opportunities have been found particularly helpful in TQ initia-
tives (Blackburn & Rosen, 1996). The use of performance management
strategies and compensation systems also should be clearly tied to the effec-
tive use of training tools. For example, performance appraisal criteria could
include the extent to which supervisors plan for the integration (i.e., transfer)
of a subordinate’s new knowledge. From a compensation perspective, mone-
tary incentives could be tied to new skill use or effective team work. As such,
HR strategies are clearly linked to transfer, employee performance is more
apt to improve, and hopefully, customers will be more satisfied.
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 213

NOTES
1. To be clear, all variables, including transfer climate, are viewed only as main effects or
simple predictors of criteria rather than as mediators or moderators. Some writers suggest that
transfer climate serves as a mediator or “gateway” through which skills learned in the training
environment are carried into work situations (e.g., Newstrom, 1997). Others suggest that many
factors moderate transfer, such that the relationship between training and skill use will vary
according to departmental (Baldwin & Ford, 1988) or technostructural (e.g., task structure, tech-
nical skills) factors (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997). The current model takes a more elementary
approach, viewing contextual factors as both separate as well as simultaneous predictors that
operate independently of training. Our intent is to suggest that a simple and straightforward test
of the contextual model only needs to show that transfer climate will add significant variance
beyond that explained by these other contextual factors.
2. In the current study, the change and stress climate measures were viewed as reflecting
organizational or departmental characteristics. Thus, it would be expected that there would be
significant departmental differences on these measures. ANCOVAs (ps < .001) and a
MANCOVA, F(18, 2,320) = 3.35, Wilks’s Lambda = .93, p < .001, indicated such differences.
Comparisons of these quantitative findings and qualitative differences from interviews and
focus groups support the validity of the climate measures as organizational constructs.
For example, ratings of negative changes were the lowest in those departments with leaders
who had the most long-term experience in TQ or who advocated TQ application (parks, M =
3.75; engineering, M = 3.65; compared to the grand mean = 4.01). In contrast, leaders in “police
supports” had not had much experience with TQ; they had difficulty using quality principles to
reshape chain-of-command management styles. At the same time, employees also had experi-
enced a number of other structural changes during the TQ transition (e.g., move operations to
new settings, redesign of work systems). Analyses showed that these employees experienced the
most negative changes (M = 4.27) as well as the greatest amounts of stress (M = 3.16) and role
ambiguity (M = 2.69). As a comparison, employees in the library system—which had seen the
least TQ training and overall more structural stability—had the lowest ratings on job stress (M =
2.74) and role ambiguity (M = 2.39).

REFERENCES

Adams, J. A. (1967). Human memory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Arvey, R. D., & Cole, D. A. (1989). Evaluating change due to training. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.),
Training and development in organizations (pp. 89-118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: Pretraining influ-
ences on trainee motivation. In J. K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations (pp. 99-127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bassi, L. J., & Van Buren, M. E. (1997, June). Sustaining high performance in bad times. Train-
ing & Development, 51(6), 31-41.
Bassi, L. J., & Van Buren, M. E. (1998, January). The 1998 state of the industry report. Training
& Development, 52(1), 21-43.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990, November/December). Why change programs
don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.
214 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Berman, E. M., & West, J. P. (1995). Municipal commitment to total quality management: A sur-
vey of recent progress. Public Administration Review, 55(1), 57-66.
Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1996). Human resource management practices and Total Quality
Management. In D. B. Fedor & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Advances in the management of organiza-
tional quality: Volume 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Broad, M. L. (1997). Transferring learning to the workplace: Seventeen case studies from the
real world of training. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training & Development.
Broad, M. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to
ensure high payoff from training investments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Carnavale, A. P. (1995). Enhancing skills in the new economy. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing
nature of work (pp. 238-251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crofton, C. G., & Dale, B. G. (1996). The difficulties encountered in the introduction of total
quality management: A case study examination. Quality Engineering, 8(3), 433-439.
Fedor, D. B., & Ghosh, S. (Eds.). (1996). The management of organizational quality. Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review and analysis.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10, 22-41.
Frazis, H. J., Herz, D. E., & Horrigan, M. W. (1995, May). Employer-provided training: Results
from a new survey. Monthly Labor Review, 118(5), 3-17.
Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development and evalua-
tion. Monterey, CA: Brooks.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and
practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342.
Holton, E. F., III, Bates, R. A., Seyler, D. L., & Carvalho, M. B. (1997). Toward construct valida-
tion of a transfer climate instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2),
95-113.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of
organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467-505.
Jex, S. M., Beehr, T. A., & Roberts, C. K. (1992). The meaning of occupational stress items to
survey respondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 623-628.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Johnson, R. S. (1993). Quality training practices. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality.
Jones, A. (1988). The skills of change-making. In R. Bennett (Ed.), Improving trainer effective-
ness (pp. 97-119). Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Salas, E. (1997). A multilevel organizational systems approach for the
implementation and transfer of training. In J. K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training effectiveness
in work organizations (pp. 247-287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liam, A. (1993). Does quality work? A review of relevant studies (The Conference Board Rep.
No. 1043). New York: The Conference Board.
Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change design and work innovation: A meta-
analysis of 131 North American field studies. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 7, 235-313). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
 Bennett et al. / CHANGE, TRANSFER CLIMATE, TRAINING 215

Mohrman, S. A., & Cohen, S. G. (1995). When people get out of the box: New relationships, new
systems. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work. (Chap. 10, pp. 365-410), San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280.
Newstrom, J. W. (1997). Invited reaction: Progress or relapse? (reaction to Holton, Bates, Seyler,
and Carvalho). Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), 129-136.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: Multiple-item scale for
measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Procopio, A. J., & Fairfield-Sonn, J. W. (1996). Changing attitudes toward quality. Group &
Organization Management, 21(2), 133-145.
Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rago, W. V. (1996). Struggles in transformation: A study in TQM, leadership, and organiza-
tional culture in a government agency. Public Administration Review, 56, 227-234.
Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., Demarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. (1994). Reframing the organiza-
tion: Why implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management
Review, 19(3), 565-584.
Riordan, C. M., & Gatewood, R. D. (1996). Putting the “E” (employee) into quality efforts: A
process model of organizational practices, quality principles, and employee reactions. In
D. F. Fedor & S. Ghosh (Eds.), The management of organizational quality (pp. 299-335).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer cli-
mate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4(4),
377-390.
Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Blickensderfer, E. (1997). Enhancing reciprocity between
training theory and practice: Principles, guidelines, and specifications. In J. K. Ford (Ed.),
Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 291-322). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO Scale: A measure of the customer orientation of
salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, XIX, 343-351.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996, Spring). Creating a climate and culture for sus-
tainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer percep-
tions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2),
150-163.
Shandler, D. (1996). Reengineering the training function: How to align training with the new
corporate agenda. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie.
Siguaw, J. A., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E., II. (1994). The influence of the market orientation of
the firm on sales force behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXI,
106-116.
Tadepalli, R. (1991). Perceptions of role stress by boundary role persons: An empirical investi-
gation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(4), 490-514.
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job:
The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 239-252.
Troy, K. (1996). Change management: Striving for customer value (Report No. 1167-96-RR).
New York: The Conference Board.
Wall, S., & White, E. (1997). Building Saturn’s organization-wide transfer support model. In
Broad, M. L. (Ed.), Transferring learning to the workplace: Seventeen case studies from
216 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

the real world of training (pp. 165-187). Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training &
Development.
West, J. P., Berman, E. M., & Milakovich, M. E. (1994). Total quality management in local gov-
ernment. In The municipal yearbook 1994 (Call No. JS344.C5 A24; pp. 14-25). Washington,
DC: International City/County Management Association.
Wexley, K., & Latham, G. P. (1980). Developing and training human resources in an organiza-
tion. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Joel B. Bennett, Ph.D., received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Texas,
Austin. He is an associate research scientist at the Institute of Behavioral Research (IBR)
and works in the area of training and development, organizational wellness, and work-
place substance use.

Wayne E.K. Lehman, Ph.D., received his doctorate in psychology from the Texas Chris-
tian University. He is a research scientist who oversees the project on workplace sub-
stance use at the IBR. His research interests are in the measurement, etiology, and impact
of employee substance use.

Jamie K. Forst, Ph.D., received his doctorate in psychology from the Texas Christian
University. He is currently the manager of Training and Development for Rolls Royce,
PLC, Allison Engine Corporation.