Influences of workplace environment

factors on employees’ training transfer

Khahan Na-nan, Kanokporn Chaiprasit and Peerapong Pukkeeree

Abstract Khahan Na-nan and

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the direct and indirect influences of workplace Kanokporn Chaiprasiti
environment factors on the motivation to transfer the acquired training (MT) and the transfer of training. are both based at the
The workplace environment factors under study encompass the organizational support, supervisor support, Rajamangala University of
peer support, technological support and the opportunity to use the acquired training. Technology Thanyaburi,
Design/methodology/approach – In the study, the empirical data were garnered from a sample of Pathum Thani, Thailand.
220 business school students, using a 52-question questionnaire. A research framework was first proposed Peerapong Pukkeeree is based
and the structural equation modeling subsequently utilized to test the research framework and determine the
at the Ramkhamhaeng
direct influence of the workplace environment factors on the transfer of training and also their indirect
University, Bangkok, Thailand.
influence on TT through the MT variable.
Findings – The structural equation modeling model is congruent with the empirical data, with the χ2 statistic of
24.414, the degree of freedom of 21, the p-value of 0.273, the goodness of fit index of 0.977 and the root mean
square error of approximation of 0.027. The findings revealed that the workplace environment factors directly
influenced the training transfer behavior of the participants and indirectly through the MT of the individuals.
Most importantly, the proposed model could achieve the coefficient of prediction (R2) as high as 82 percent.
Originality/value – Workplace environment is important to motivation to transfer and transfer of training.
To enhance the training transfer effectiveness, businesses should take into account the contributions
associated with each environment factor in the design and implementation of training programs.
Keywords Environmental factors, Transfer of training, Motivation to transfer
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In human resources management and development, the transfer of training refers to a process
by which trainees recall knowledge, skills and attitudes acquired from participation in training and
subsequently apply them to their tasks. This suggests that a training program would amount to
nothing unless the participants engaged in training transfer activities. From the past to the
present of the rate of transfer, according to Naquin and Baldwin (2003), Grossman and
Salas (2011), Cowman and McCarthy (2016), the rate of training/learning transfer is a mere
10 percent, despite the huge, ever-increasing expenditures on human resources training and
development programs. “Why does such an incompatibility exist?” has thus become a byword of
most practitioners in the field of human resources.
According to Noe (1986), the low rate of training transfer could be attributed to both
individual and motivational factors. Baldwin and Ford (1988) categorized contributors to
effective transfer of training into three factor groups: input factors (i.e. ability, personality and
motivation); output factors (i.e. generalization/application and maintenance); and conditions
(i.e. learning and retention).
Specifically, the workplace environment has been proved to significantly influence the transfer of
training (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Na-nan, 2010; Pham et al., 2013; Noorizan et al., 2016;
Chauhan et al., 2016). This empirical research, thus, investigated workplace environmental
factors that have been believed to directly and indirectly impact training transfer decisions and
behavior. The workplace environmental (ENV ) factors being studied include organizational
support (OS), supervisor support (SS), peer support (PS), technological support (TS) and the

DOI 10.1108/ICT-02-2017-0010 VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017, pp. 303-314, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 303
 opportunity to use the acquired training (OU). In addition, this empirical research examined the
influence of these workplace environmental factors on the trainees’ motivation to transfer their
acquired knowledge.

Research parameters and literature review

Training transfer (TT)
According to Macaulay et al. (2000), the application of knowledge, skills and attitudes to work
has been referred to in the human resources management field as learning transfer or transfer of
learning or training transfer or transfer of training. Nonetheless, variations of the definition of
“training transfer” have been proposed. Baldwin and Ford (1988) stated that training transfer
was a form of application and maintenance of knowledge. According to Holton and Baldwin
(2003, cited in Xin et al., 2014), training transfer referred to near and far transfers. Near transfer
refers to transfers between very similar contexts or atmospheres, whereas far transfer refers to
transfers between different contexts or atmospheres, which seem remote and alien from one
another, such as team building learned in a training session being applied in the workplace.
According to Burke and Hutchins (2007) and Nur et al. (2015), training transfer is referred to the
application of acquired knowledge, skills and attitudes to assigned tasks. This is consistent with
Chauhan et al. (2016), who documented that transfer of training is referred to the extent to
which employees applied their new knowledge, skills and attitudes to current and future tasks.
While Pham et al. (2013) noted that transfer of training refers to application of the leaned
knowledge, skills and attitudes in the workplace, which improves the trainees’ performance of
current and future responsibilities, Renta-Davids et al. (2014) stated that transfer of training was
the ability of employees to directly apply what they learned previously in the workplace.
In this empirical research, knowledge transfer refers to the participants’ levels of understanding of
the processes and steps relevant to their responsible tasks. Skills transfer is their capability to
solve work-related problems, and their decision-making ability when faced with work-related
challenges. Meanwhile, attitude transfer involves their levels of satisfaction, dedication and
positive views toward the tasks.

Motivation to transfer training (MT)

According to Noe (1986), motivation for training transfer refers to the trainees’ desire to apply the
acquired knowledge and skills to their responsible tasks. In addition, the motivation to transfer
training intensifies when: the employees are confident in their capabilities, the infrastructure to
apply the acquired training is in place, the outcomes are predictable and the acquired training
could indeed resolve operational issues. According to Salas et al. (2012), the motivation for
training transfer could be assessed by measuring the direction, intensity and persistence of the
application of the acquired knowledge, skills and attitudes to the responsible tasks.
The motivation to transfer training can be predicted by personal characteristics, for example
motivation to work and self-efficacy, and the workplace environment. (van der Locht et al., 2013).
According to Noe (1986), Gegenfurtner (2011) and Madagamage et al. (2014), the motivation for
TT was subject to a variety of factors, including the individual’s capability to apply the knowledge
and skills, the opportunity to apply the knowledge, the workplace environment (e.g. superior
support, peer support, technological support) and the predictability of rewards and outcomes.
Specifically, Ahmed et al. (2015) stated that the predictability of rewards contributed
significantly to the motivation for training transfer/application. In addition, Pham et al. (2013),
Noorizan et al. (2016) and Chauhan et al. (2016) found that the effect of organizational
involvement and the workplace environment was positively correlated to motivation for training
transfer. In other words, a workplace with abundant opportunities for the application of acquired
knowledge (i.e. organizational support) and in which peer and supervisor support are the norm,
will witness high levels of motivation in training transfer.
However, there are some limitations to the literature on training transfer: a lack of consideration in
explaining the scope of training transfer; insufficient definition of the limited generalization of
transfer content; and inadequate summaries to illustrate training transfer, because of using

PAGE 304 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017

short-term retention (near transfer) to measure acquired knowledge and skills. Furthermore,
Alawneh (2008) claimed that motivation could affect transfer positively or negatively. Obstacles to
transfer could arise from various factors related to the organizational climate, program design and
personality characteristics.

Workplace environmental (ENV ) factors

According to Tracey and Tews (2005), the workplace environment directly and indirectly
influences the trainees’ training transfer. According to Holton (2003), Na-nan (2010),
Noorizan et al. (2016) and Chauhan et al. (2016), the extent to which the acquired training was
transferred was influenced by workplace environmental factors, including organizational support,
supervisor support, peer/colleague support, technological support and opportunities to utilize the
acquired knowledge.
Yusof (2011) stated that a supportive workplace environment would encourage the utilization of
acquired knowledge and skills. Thus, an atmosphere suited to training transfer must be a supportive
and conducive environment. In addition, Na-nan (2010) suggested that the workplace environment
was a major factor contributing to training transfer. Specifically, workplace environmental factors
that influence the trainees’ training transfer include organizational support (OS), supervisor
support (SS), peer support (PS), technological support (TS) and the opportunity to use the acquired
training (OU).
Organizational support, for example organizational culture, policy, reward systems and
management, influences the extent of the application of acquired training to assignments
(i.e. training transfer). Nevertheless, organizational support can either promote or hinder the
application of training to the tasks (Homklin et al., 2014). Ahmed et al. (2015) proposed that
organizational support, in the form of attractive remuneration (rewards) and a realistic career path,
could effectively encourage the application of acquired knowledge to tasks. Specifically,
attractive rewards would improve the employees’ financial condition and thereby effect the
behavioral change, such that the employees would be more inclined to apply the acquired
training to their responsible tasks (Kasemsap, 2016). According to Chiaburu et al. (2010),
a realistic career path encouraged employees to apply their acquired skills.
According to Rothwell (2005), supervisor support refers to provision of the resources necessary
for efficient operations. Furthermore, Chauhan et al. (2016) claimed that supervisor support
through the provision of resources and the removal of operational hindrances contributed to the
effectiveness of training/learning transfer. In addition, the support from supervisors included
recognition of the importance of employees participating in training programs and the
subsequent application of their acquired knowledge (Cowman and McCarthy, 2016).
Chauhan et al. (2017) recommended that supervisor support was a significant contributing factor
of training transfer. The support from superiors also includes creating an atmosphere conducive to
learning and/or encouraging employees to apply the acquired skills (Klink et al., 2001).
Peer support is the product of establishing a formal or informal network of employees. According
to Noe (1998), network members would regularly meet, discuss and share their acquired
knowledge. According to Baldwin and Ford (1988), Blanchard and Thacker (2007), workplace
peers/colleagues inspired and promoted training transfer. Peer support could take the form of
advice, discussion and/or the sharing of experiences that increase participants’ skills and
expertise. In addition, peer support creates an atmosphere in which knowledge and experiences
are freely shared and exchanged between employees (Grossman and Salas, 2011).
Technological support refer to the availability of technological infrastructure to meet employees’
operational requirements (Noe, 1998). In addition, digital technology has been successfully
utilized to enhance post-training performance (Noe et al., 2000). According to Na-nan (2010),
deploying technology in training transfer would lead to continuous learning, due to ease of access
to the relevant knowledge and skills.
The opportunity to use the acquired training is largely attributable to the workplace environment
and the employees’ own motivation. Specifically, employees are offered abundant
opportunities to utilize their acquired training or skills, given the high compatibility between

VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 305

 the assignments and the acquired training (Manju and Suresh, 2011). According to
Edwards (2013) and Noorizan et al. (2016), opportunities to utilize the acquired knowledge
influence the motivation for training transfer.
Figure 1 illustrates the research framework, based on the parameters and factors that directly and
indirectly influence the transfer of training.

Research methodology
Participants
The research population was 374 Master of Business Administration (MBA) students at the
Faculty of Business Administration, Rajamangala University of Technology. The sample size was
determined using the technique of Linderman et al. (1980), who proposed that in data analysis
using structural equation modeling (SEM), the ratio of samples to parameters should be 20:1.
In this research, there are 11 parameters and the sample size was, thus, 220 MBA students.
The 11 parameters are organizational support, supervisor support, peer support, technological
support, opportunity to use, environment, motivation to transfer, transfer of training, knowledge,
skills and attitude (Figure 1).
Of the total sample of 220 students, 70 percent were female and the rest (30 percent) were male.
Slightly over half the sample (54.5 percent) was aged between 20-29 years and a mere
1.8 percent were 50+ years old. In addition, almost half the respondents (48.2 percent) were
private company employees and only 4.1 percent worked for a non-profit organization. More than
two-thirds of the respondents (67.3 percent) had at least one year of work experience (1-9 years)
while 8.2 percent had no formal work experience.
The research was conducted in the setting of MBA programs in Thailand. The MBA setting
provides a good opportunity to investigate transfer of training due to the following rationales. First,
MBAs are popular in Thailand. It is a booming, official, business training program, with increasing
numbers of MBA students graduating each year. This brings us to the question of how the
knowledge, skills and attitudes obtained by MBA students are transferred into their work.
Second, all MBA students are professional, working while taking the MBA course, so they can
instantly apply what they have learned to their responsibilities or workplace. Therefore,
the possibilities these learning programs offer for training transfer are of utmost importance to the
MBA students. Third, the MBA program’s cost is higher than other programs. Therefore, it is
necessary to make the notification on transferable knowledge, skills and attitude among MBA
students to study of what they or organization have invested in this MBA program. Finally,
MBA students can learn both academic knowledge and practical preparation, with a highly
analytical approach to managerial problem solving and the ability to approach new problems in a
structured fashion (Cameron, 2005). Therefore, the question is under which conditions on MBA
programs can MBA students apply what they learned from the classes to their work?

Figure 1 The framework of this empirical research

Organizational Motivation to
support transfer

Supervisor Knowledge
support

Environment Transfer of
Peer support Skills
training
Technological
support Attitude

Opportunity to
use

PAGE 306 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017

Measures
This research utilized a 52-question questionnaire for the data collection. To measure the workplace
environment, we used Na-nan (2010) questionnaires, which contain 29 items for measuring the
workplace environment (ENV). Examples of the ENV-related questions were “Do you agree that
the remuneration motivates you to apply the acquired skills to the tasks?” “Do you agree that the
existing career paths incentivize you to participate in training and, subsequently, apply it to your
work?” and “Do you agree that your colleagues would seek your job-related advice and assistance
after the training?”.
To measure the motivation to transfer (MT), we used Methrujpanont et al. (2015) questionnaires
which comprise 12 items. MT sample questions were “Do you agree that the acquired skills
would enable you to efficiently resolve work-related problems?” and “Do you agree that your
career advancement is directly tied to the application of the acquired skills to your work?”.
A total of 11 items for measuring training transfer (TT) were adapted from the study of
Na-nan (2010) questionnaires. Examples of the TT sample questions were “Do you agree that
the training offers a better understanding of your responsibility?” “Do you agree that your work
performance has improved following the application of the acquired skills and knowledge to the
tasks?” and “Do you agree that you are more motivated in your job following the training?”.
The measurements were carried out using a six-point Likert scale, where 1 denotes strongly
disagree and 6 strongly agree. Prior to the collection of data, the questionnaire was tested with a
sample of 30 students to determine its reliability and internal consistency, with the content validity
of 0.60-1.00 and Cronbach’s α coefficients in the range of 0.862-0.930.

Analysis
The means, standard deviations, variances, skewness and kurtosis were used to describe the
characteristics of the samples with respect to the factors under investigation. In addition, to test
whether or not workplace environment variables have a correlational effect on motivation to
transfer and transfer of training, and whether motivation to transfer has a correlational effect on
training transfer, we used SEM via AMOS version 21 (Arbuckle, 2012).

Research findings and discussion

In Table I, the means of the workplace environment (ENV ), motivation to transfer (MT) and
training transfer (TT) variables/factors were, respectively, 3.95, 4.17 and 4.15 (on the six-point
Likert scale), indicating that most respondents agreed with the question descriptions.
The corresponding skewness values were −0.84, −0.38 and −0.83, the negativity suggesting
that most of the respondents gave scores higher than the average. Meanwhile,
the corresponding kurtosis values were all positive 2.08, 1.73 and 2.64, indicating tall
distribution curves.

Table I Descriptive statistics of the samples with respect to the factors of interest

Variables/factors Mean SD Min. Max. Skewness Kurtosis Variance

Environment (ENV ) 3.95 0.84 1 5.55 −0.84 2.08 0.70

1. Organizational support (OS) 4.00 0.99 1 5.86 −0.57 0.812 0.99
2. Supervisor support (SS) 3.63 1.03 1 6.00 −0.35 0.293 1.07
3. Peer support (PS) 3.95 0.89 1 5.83 −0.51 1.50 0.802
4. Technological support (TS) 4.23 1.01 1 6.00 −0.49 1.01 1.03
5.Opportunity to use (OU) 3.95 0.83 1 5.67 −0.37 2.26 0.70
Motivation to transfer (MT) 4.17 0.88 1 5.92 −0.38 1.73 0.78
Training transfer (TT) 4.15 0.83 1 6.00 −0.83 2.64 0.69
1. Knowledge transfer (KT) 4.16 0.88 1 6.00 −0.42 1.91 0.88
2. Skills transfer (ST) 4.20 0.87 1 6.00 −0.33 2.07 0.87
3. Attitude transfer (AT) 4.10 0.89 1 6.00 −0.29 1.47 0.89

VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 307

 Table II tabulates the correlation coefficients (r) of pairs of the nine factors under investigation,
all of which are positively significant (p o0.01) and in the range of 0.492-0.822. In addition,
no multicollinearity exists, since none of the correlation coefficients are above 0.90
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).
Figure 2 depicts the SEM of the workplace environment factors that influence the motivation to
transfer (MT) and the transfer of training (TT), with the χ2 statistic of 24.414, the degree of freedom
of 21, the p-value of 0.273, the goodness of fit index of 0.977 and the root mean square error of
approximation of 0.027. In the figure, the workplace environment significantly directly influenced
the motivation to transfer (MT) (β ¼ 0.88, p o0.001) but was directly less influential over the
training transfer (TT) (β ¼ 0.33, p o0.001). In comparison, the motivation to transfer (MT), given a
conducive workplace environment, exerted a greater influence on the training transfer (TT)
( β ¼ 0.60, po 0.001).
In terms of the coefficient of prediction (R2), the likelihood that the workplace environment (ENV )
factors collectively contribute to the participants’ motivation to transfer (MT) the acquired training
is as high as 78 percent (R2 ¼ 0.78). Meanwhile, a supportive workplace environment and highly

Table II Analysis of the relationship between factors

OS SS PS TS OU MT KT ST AT

OS 1
SS 0.693** 1
PS 0.765** 0.743** 1
TS 0.718** 0.509** 0.689** 1
OU 0.720** 0.652** 0.755** 0.733** 1
MT 0.732** 0.492** 0.682** 0.711** 0.772** 1
KT 0.661** 0.518** 0.622** 0.609** 0.686** 0.792** 1
ST 0.664** 0.502** 0.619** 0.614** 0.713** 0.822** 0.836** 1
AT 0.673** 0.520** 0.660** 0.643** 0.724** 0.807** 0.753** 0.802** 1
Notes: OS, organizational support; SS, supervisor support; PS, peer/colleague support; TS, technological
support; OU, opportunity to use the acquired training; MT, motivation to transfer; KT, knowledge transfer;
ST, skills transfer; AT, attitude transfer. **p o0.01

Figure 2 The structural equation model of the workplace environment factors that influence
motivation to transfer (MT) and transfer of training (TT)

0.78
0.76

OS MT 0.83
0.66 0.88 0.60
0.87 KT
0.81
SS 0.91 0.89
0.82
0.80 0.94
ST
0.89 0.33
PS ENV TT 0.93 0.75
0.83
0.69
AT
TS 0.88

0.77

OU

Notes: Where 2 = 24.414; df = 21, p-value = 9.273; RMSEA = 0.027; 2/df = 1.63; GFI = 0.977

PAGE 308 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017

motivated employees with regard to training transfer collectively further raise the likelihood of
training transfer (TT) of the participants to 82 percent (R2 ¼ 0.82), as illustrated in Figure 2.
In Table III, the workplace environment (ENV ) factors, comprising the organizational support,
supervisor support, peer support, technological support and the opportunity to use the acquired
training, significantly influenced – both directly and indirectly – the motivation to transfer the
acquired training (MT) of the individuals (po 0.01). By the same token, the motivation to transfer
(MT) significantly and directly influence the training transfer of the individuals ( po 0.01).
Among the workplace environment (ENV ) factors, peer support (PS) exhibited the highest
influence with the loading factor of 0.89, followed by OU (0.88), OS (0.87), TS (0.83) and
SS (0.81), with the 1 percent significance level (Figure 2). These workplace environmental factors
collectively, significantly influence training transfer both directly and indirectly. This is consistent
with Noe (1998), who documented that the extent of training transfer was subject to the trainees’
perception of the entire workplace environment, which in turn could either promote or impede the
transfer of their acquired knowledge, skills and attitudes. The finding is also consistent with
Richman-Hirsch (2001), in that a conducive workplace environment would encourage trainees to
apply their acquired knowledge and skills to their assignments.
Specifically, the findings revealed that the peer support factor (0.89) plays a crucial role in the
participants’ training transfer decisions and activity. This is consistent with Chauhan et al. (2016),
who reported that the efficiency of training transfer could be enhanced by the formation of formal
or informal networks of employees in the organization. A network, consisting of two or more
employees, would regularly meet, discuss and share (i.e. transfer) their acquired skills and
knowledge. According to Silberman (1998), these conversational exchanges between workplace
colleagues would further sharpen their skills.
The opportunities afforded by the organization, assignments from superiors and/or requests from
colleagues collectively contribute to employees’ application of acquired training to their tasks (0.88).
It is thus advisable that businesses explore ways that allow for the application of newly acquired
knowledge, skills and attitudes. According to Edwards (2013), the opportunity afforded to
employees to apply their acquired skills and knowledge contributes to enhanced learning transfer.
In addition, Burke and Hutchins (2007) noted that discussions on learning transfer between trainees
and relevant parties enhance the efficiency of the learning transfer.
The OS factor also statistically, significantly contributes to training transfer (0.87). Specifically,
organizational support, in the form of rewards and career advancement, plays an important part
in the extent of training transfer, such that the more connected the rewards and/or career
progression are to participation in training and the transfer of training, the more motivated
employees are in applying the acquired training to their tasks. This is consistent with
Ahmed et al. (2015), who reported that motivation, in the form of career advancement,
job security and/or attractive remuneration, would induce positive behavioral change in terms of
training transfer. This could be attributed to the improved financial conditions afforded by
those incentives.
Most participants agreed that technological support could significantly enhance their training/
learning transfer (0.83). The finding suggests that, for effective training transfer, businesses
should attach greater importance to this particular workplace environmental factor. According to

Table III The direct (DE), indirect (IE) and overall (TE) influences of the ENV and MT factors
on motivation to transfer (MT) and training transfer (TT), based on the modified model
MT TT
Variables/factors DE IE TE DE IE TE

ENV 0.881*** – 0.881*** 0.331*** 0.528*** 0.859***

MT 0.599*** – 0.599***
Note: ***po0.001
Source: Authors’ own calculation, based on AMOS Graphic Statistical Package

VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 309

 Pace et al. (1991), the utilization of technology in human resources development would facilitate
training at all levels of the organization. In addition, Na-nan (2010) noted that the utilization of
technology would increase training transfer capabilities.
Supervisor support also contributed to the application of acquired training/knowledge (0.81).
According to Cowman and McCarthy (2016), supervisor support, in the form of provision of
resources to facilitate the training transfer and/or the removal of operational obstacles,
contributed to efficient training transfer. Chauhan et al. (2017) reported that supervisor support,
in the form of training-related conversational exchanges and constructive feedback, could
increase the efficiency of training transfer.

Conclusion and discussion

In this empirical research, the findings revealed that the workplace environmental factors
statistically significantly influence the participants’ training transfer decisions and behavior
(Figure 2), which is consistent with Baldwin and Ford (1988), Na-nan (2010), Pham et al. (2013),
Noorizan et al. (2016) and Chauhan et al. (2016). The workplace environmental factors under
study encompass organizational support, supervisor support, peer support, technological
support and opportunities to utilize the acquired skills/knowledge. It can be said that there is a
relationship between workplace environment and motivation to transfer and transfer training.
In other words, the more conducive and supportive the workplace environment is, the higher the
likelihood that employees will apply the training they acquire to the tasks they are responsible for
(i.e. training transfer).
Of particular interest, this empirical research incorporated the motivation to transfer (MT) factor in
the causal analysis for more comprehensive results than previous research studies, in which the
workplace environmental factors and individual-level factors (e.g. the motivation to transfer)
were investigated separately in relation to training transfer. Thus, the research findings have shed
some light on the influence of the individual-level factor (i.e. the MT factor) on training transfer.
Specifically, the research findings revealed that the MT factor, given a conducive workplace
environment, significantly influenced ( β ¼ 0.60) the participants’ training transfer (TT) behaviors,
while the direct influence of the ENV factors on their TT decisions was considerably less
( β ¼ 0.33), as shown in Figure 2.
Taken together, both the workplace environmental and motivation to transfer factors exerted
varying degrees of influence over the participants’ training transfer decisions and behavior.
In other words, the participants’ choice to apply the acquired knowledge, skills and attitudes to
their tasks was governed by both macro-level factors (i.e. the workplace environmental factors)
and the individual-level factor (i.e. the MT factor). This implies that, to enhance the effectiveness
of training transfer, businesses should take into account the contributions associated with each
factor in the design and implementation of training programs. In addition, more investment
dollars should be directed at initiatives and/or activities that lay a robust foundation for a
conducive workplace environment and thereby heighten the motivation of employees to
transfer their acquired skills and knowledge. For instance, the reward system could be
streamlined so that it is more attractive and linked to training transfer, and/or make available the
modern technological infrastructure that facilitates the application of acquired skills.

Implications for practice

Based on the research results, we suggest several recommendations to enhance training transfer
for practice of learning from classes to workplace.

Work environment
1. Organizational support: in order for an organization to implement any projects, it must have a
policy concerning resource management, which is considered an excellent plan, higher than
the industrial standard. The resources management’s plan can be utilized for employees to
transform their learning experience into job benefits, job security, work atmosphere and

PAGE 310 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017

 career paths. Therefore, organizations must understand the connection between supportive
roles and training transfer processes. The organization should reconsider the essential factor
of support materials to facilitate employees’ transfer of knowledge, skills and attitude,
to apply them in their work.
2. Supervisor support: the manager or supervisor must be aware of the important
role of maintaining the relationship with his/her employees. This is essential, so that the
supervisor and workers can share their knowledge, skills and experiences in order to
improve the organization. Moreover, employees’ participation can be useful in setting a
strategy for the organization that will challenge employees’ skills and increase the
organization’s efficiency.
3. Peer support: the organization must promote a learning environment, which will enable the
application of working experience to improve the organization’s effectiveness. Meanwhile,
knowledge sharing between one another will suggest what can be done for the organization.
4. Technological support: providing technology to facilitate knowledge sharing and employees’
performance and encourage them to use and access technology to create and share
knowledge, skills and attitudes.
5. Opportunity to utilize the acquired skills/knowledge: one of the most important things is to
give the employees opportunities to perform tasks from their learning experience. In order for
employees to function and perform effectively, the organization should have adequate
facilities to support their jobs.

Motivation to transfer
The executive must set a challenging motivation, which includes internal and external motivations
to arouse the employees. A set of motivators will inspire employees to use their skills, knowledge
and experience to implement their jobs. For example, linking extrinsic motivation for employees
who bring knowledge, skills and attitude to their jobs will encourage and support employees’
self-efficacy to transfer training for effective performance and future success.

Limitation and future research

It is important to mention the limitations of the study in this research. Due to limited time and cost,
this study was conducted among business school students. Future research would benefit
from the use of larger samples or expanding other samples. As a quantitative methodology
was used, it was not fully able to explore the in-depth data. A mixed method is suggested for
future research.

References
Ahmed, U., M.A., A., Mohd, Z.M., Phulpoto, W. and A., U.W. (2015), “Role and impact of reward and
accountability on training transfer”, Business and Economics Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Alawneh, K.M. (2008), “Factors affecting training transfer: participants’ motivation to transfer training, literature
review”, paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research
Conference in the Americas, Panama City, FL, February 20-24.
Arbuckle, J. (2012), IBM SPSS AMOS (Version 21.0) (Computer Program), IBM, Chicago, IL.

Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, K.J. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research”, Personal
Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 63-105.

Blanchard, P.N. and Thacker, J.W. (2007), Effective Training Systems, Strategies, and Practices, 3rd ed.,
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Burke, L.A. and Hutchins, H.M. (2007), “Training transfer: an integrative literature review”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-96.
Cameron, S. (2005), The MBA Handbook: Skills for Mastering Management, Pearson Education.

VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 311

 Chauhan, R., Ghosh, P., Rai, A. and Kapoor, S. (2017), “Improving transfer of training with transfer design:
does supervisor support moderate the relationship?”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 29 No. 4.

Chauhan, R., Ghosh, P., Rai, A. and Shukla, D. (2016), “The impact of support at the workplace on transfer of
training: a study of an Indian manufacturing unit”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 200-13.
Chiaburu, D.S., Van Dam, K. and Hutchins, H.M. (2010), “Social support in the workplace and training
transfer: a longitudinal analysis”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 187-200.

Cowman, M.C. and McCarthy, A.M. (2016), “The impact of demographic and situational factors on training
transfer in a health care setting”, The Irish Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 129-42.

Edwards, J.S. (2013), “Factors affecting training transfer in supervisors and hourly employees in a
manufacturing organization”, unpublished dissertation, Southern Cross University, Lismore.

Gegenfurtner, A. (2011), “Motivation and transfer in professional training: a meta-analysis of the moderating
effects of knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 153-68.
Grossman, R. and Salas, E. (2011), “The transfer of training: what really matters”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 103-20.

Holton, E.F. III (2003), “What’s really wrong diagnosis for learning transfer system change?”, in Holton, E.F. III
and Baldwin, T.T. (Eds), Improving Learning Transfer in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 59-79.

Holton, E.F. III and Baldwin, T.T. (2003), “Making transfer happen an action perspective on learning
transfer systems”, in Holton, E.F. III and Baldwin, T.T. (Eds), Improving Learning Transfer in Organizations,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-6.

Homklin, T., Takahashi, Y. and Techakanont, K. (2014), “The influence of social and organizational support on
transfer of training: evidence from Thailand”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 116-31.
Kasemsap, K. (2016), “Promoting leadership development and talent management in modern organizations”,
Project Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools,
and Applications, p. 178.

Klink, M., Gielen, E. and Nauta, C. (2001), “Supervisory support as a major condition to enhance transfer”,
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 52-63.

Linderman, R.H., Merenda, P.F. and Gold, R.Z. (1980), Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis,
Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

Macaulay, C., Cree, V.E. and Macaulay, C. (2000), “Transfer of learning”, Transfer of Learning in Professional
and Vocational Education: Handbook for Social Work Trainers, Routledge, London, pp. 1-26.

Madagamage, G., Warnakulasooriya, B. and Wickramasuriya, H. (2015), “Factors influencing motivation

to transfer training: an empirical study of a government sector training program in Sri Lanka”, Tropical
Agricultural Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 12-25.

Manju, S. and Suresh, B. (2011), “Work environment factors and implications for transfer of training”,
SDMIMD Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 32-41.

Methrujpanont, N., Nantsupawat, R. and Klunlkin, A. (2015), “Factors affecting transfer of learning
after training in the nursing specialty program among professional nurses”, Nursing Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 1-11.

Na-nan, K. (2010), “A causal model of factors affecting transfer of training”, Journal of Education, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 93-109.

Naquin, S.S. and Baldwin, T.T. (2003), “Managing transfer before learning beings the transfer-ready learner”,
in Holton, E.F. III and Baldwin, T.T. (Eds), Improving Learning Transfer in Organizations, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 80-96.

Noe, R.A. (1986), “Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 736-49.

PAGE 312 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017

Noe, R.A. (1998), Employee Training and Development, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gergart, B. and Wright, P.M. (2000), Human Resource Management Gaining
a Competitive Advantage, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Noorizan, M., Afzan, N.F. and Akma, A.S. (2016), “The moderating effects of motivation on work
environment and training transfer: a preliminary analysis”, Procedia – Economics and Finance, Vol. 37,
pp. 158-63.

Nur, Y.F.A., Ruhizan, M. and Bekri, R.M. (2015), “Learning transfer in national occupational skill standard
(NOSS) system and workplace learning: how training design affect it?”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 174, pp. 156-63.

Pace, R.W., Smith, P.C. and Mills, G.E. (1991), Human Resource Development: The Field, Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Pham, N.T., Segers, M.S. and Gijselaers, W.H. (2013), “Effects of work environment on transfer of training:
empirical evidence from master of business administration programs in Vietnam”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Renta-Davids, A.-I., Jiménez-González, J.-M., Fandos-Garrido, M. and González-Soto, Á.-P. (2014),

“Transfer of learning: motivation, training design and learning-conducive work effects”, European Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 728-44.

Richman-Hirsch, W.L. (2001), “Post training interventions to enhance transfer: the moderating effects of work
environments”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 105-20.
Rothwell, W.J. (2005), Beyond Training and Development: The Groundbreaking Classic on Human
Performance Enhancement, 2nd ed., AMACOM, New York, NY.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K. and Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2012), “The science of training and
development in organizations: what matters in practice”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 74-101.
Silberman, S. (1998), “Ex libris: the joys of curling up with a good digital reading device”, Wired, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 98-104.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Tracey, J.B. and Tews, M.J. (2005), “Construct validity of a general training climate scale”, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 353-74.

van der Locht, M., van van Dam, K. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2013), “Getting the most of management training: the
role of identical elements for training transfer”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 422-39.

Xin, Z., Lai, Z.R., Li, F. and Maes, J.H. (2014), “Near‐and far‐transfer effects of working memory updating
training in elderly adults”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 403-8.

Yusof, A.N.M. (2011), “Training transfer: training characteristic, training design and work environment
evaluation”, International Conference on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications (ICBEIA),
pp. 7-11.

Further reading
Clark, C.S., Dobbins, G.H. and Ladd, R.T. (1993), “Exploratory field study of training motivation”, Group and
Organizational Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 292-307.
Cox, D. (1987), “Motives for private income transfers”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95 No. 3,
pp. 508-46.
Gilpin-Jackson, Y. and Bushe, G.R. (2007), “Leadership development training transfer: a case study of
post-training determinants”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 980-1004.
Goldstein, I.L. and Ford, J.K. (2002), Training in Organizations Needs Assessment, Development and
Evaluation, 4th ed., Wadsworth Publishing, Florence, KY.

Gregoire, T.K., Propp, J. and Poertner, J. (1998), “The supervisor’s role in the transfer of training”,
Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Handy, L.A.W. (2008), “The importance of the work environment variables on the transfer of training”,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 313

 Holton, E.F. III (1996), “The flawed four-level evaluation model”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Kupritze, V.W. (2002), “The relative impact of workplace design on training transfer”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 427-47.
Lim, D.H. and Johnson, S.D. (2002), “Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer”,
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-48.
McLagan, P. (2003), “New organizational forces affecting learning transfer designing for impact”,
in Holton, E.F. III and Baldwin, T.T. (Eds), Improving Learning Transfer in Organizations, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 39-56.
Mathieu, J.E. and Martineau, J.W. (1997), “Individual and situational influences on training motivation”,
in Ford, J.K., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Draiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M.S. (Eds), Improving Training
Effectiveness in Work Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 193-222.
Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), “The science of training: a decade of progress”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 471-99.
Sevilla, C. and Wells, T.D. (1998), “Contracting to ensure training transfer”, Training & Development, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 10-1.
Seyler, D.L., Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A., Burnett, M.F. and Carvalho, M.A. (1998), “Factors affecting
motivation to transfer training”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-16.

Corresponding author
Khahan Na-nan can be contacted at: khahan_n@rmutt.ac.th

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 314 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 49 NO. 6 2017