No abstract

No abstract

Training effectiveness is a function of trainee characteristics, training design and contextual factors. Social exchanges in the work environment have received less attention compared with other training effectiveness predictors. We focus on the extent to which leaders (through their relationships and exchanges with followers) influence skill transfer, maintenance and generalization. We also examine two intervening processes (training motivation and outcome expectancy). Our findings, based on surveys from 495 employees, argue for the importance of leader-member exchange for training transfer, with training motivation and outcome expectancy as intervening mechanisms.Training is one of the most frequently utilized human resource development interventions. According to Burke and Baldwin (1999), there is much evidence suggesting that a considerable part of organizations' investment in training does not result in optimal transfer. To improve job performance, the skills and behaviors learned and practiced during training have to be transferred to the workplace, maintained over time, and generalized across contexts (Holton & Baldwin, 2003). As transfer of training remains an important issue for researchers and practitioners (

We examined whether completion of a military Freefall parachuting program enhanced self-efficacy in the domains of leader self-control and leader assertiveness. The Freefall program was particularly suited for self-efficacy development because Freefall required personal mastery to overcome a substantial perceived risk. We surveyed participants at the beginning and end of the Freefall program. We also distributed a subsequent survey nine months later that allowed us to compare leader self-efficacy as a function of participation in Freefall and a similarly risky but less mastery-oriented Soaring program (i.e., flying gliders). The obtained results indicated that successful performance in Freefall, but not in Soaring, contributed to leader self-control and leader assertiveness. The implications for leading in dangerous and traditional contexts are discussed.

No abstract