The relationship between job dissatisfaction and training transfer

Abstract

The high rates of training transfer failure that prevail still puzzle practitioners as well as researchers. The central aim of the present study is to analyze the relatively under-researched role of job dissatisfaction in the training transfer process. Specifically, we expect that job dissatisfaction would have a negative effect on transfer but that this effect would be buffered by the expectation of positive transfer consequences and motivation to transfer. To test these hypotheses, 220 participants in different training programs completed an online questionnaire 1 year after training. The results support our assumptions. They reveal that job dissatisfaction has a detrimental effect on training transfer, but that motivation to transfer and the expectation of positive transfer consequences have a buffering effect. The more motivated a person is towards transfer, the less negative is the effect of job dissatisfaction on actual transfer, but only if a person expects positive outcomes from transfer, such as acknowledgment or rewards. The findings are discussed in relation to existing training transfer models, as well as models of job (dis)satisfaction.

The effects of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction on transfer of training

“…This result provides support to the second hypothesis of this study. This finding is in line with previous studies, which have indicated that employees, who are dissatisfied with their job, transfer fewer skills and less knowledge to the job than employees who are satisfied with their job ( Jodlbauer et al, 2012).…”

“…Reviews of the transfer of training literature reveal that relatively few studies have empirically examined the impact of job satisfaction on transfer of training ( Jodlbauer et al, 2012).…”

Training and organizational effectiveness: moderating role of knowledge management process

“…It is a well-established fact that training investments do not always result in the desired outcomes (Jodlbauer et al, 2011) and the current study looked at this problem by focusing on different types of training based on the skills (individual/managerial and process) and individual dimensions of knowledge management process (acquisition, conversion, application and protection). It is essential to analyze the Training and effectiveness 481 effects in detail for the following reasons: not all kinds of training result directly in organizational effectiveness (Gegenfurtner, 2011); not all dimensions of knowledge management process have a direct impact on organizational effectiveness.…”

“…Based on RBV, human capital can be considered a resource and training can be viewed as an investment in human capital that provides employees with unique knowledge, skills and abilities and these enable the firm to achieve positive outcomes ( Jodlbauer et al, 2011). Few researchers have tested interactions (moderators) between training and organizational outcomes.…”

Explicating Individual Training Decisions

“…In one of its first applications to motivation in a working environment context, Georgopoulos et al (1957) suggest that individual productivity depends on the degree to which one sees productivity as being instrumental for the achievement of personal goals. Over the past few decades, instrumentality theory and related theories have been applied to many different research questions in educational and occupational contexts-for example, in psychological research on attitudes/preferences (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), role behavior (Kinicki 1989), goal setting and commitment in the work-space (Lawler and Suttle 1973), job performance (Galbraith and Cummings 1967), occupational choice and turnover (Osborn 1990;Berger and D'Ascoli 2012), job satisfaction and training transfer (Jodlbauer et al 2011;Gegenfurtner 2013), learning intentions (Kyndt et al 2011), and students' study decisions (Gabay-Egozi et al 2010).…”