The social context of training: coworker,supervisor, or organizational support?

Dan S. Chiaburu

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to expand existing tests of what drives training transfer, byincluding support originating from three sources, i.e. one’s coworkers, supervisor, and organization.

Design/methodology/approach – The results are based on a sample of trainees attendingprofessional development programs in one organization in the USA.

Findings – Coworkers emerge as important, yet neglected, resources employees can draw on assupport for both maintaining skills and transferring them to a workplace setting.

Practical implications – If the results are supported in other studies, more attention should be given tocoworker support interventions.

Originality/value – The study provides a first test of the extent to which support originating from threedifferent sources (i.e. coworkers, supervisor, and organization) is related to maintaining and transferringskills acquired during training.

Keywords Training, Knowledge transfer, Employees

Paper type Research paper

Support from the organization, supervisor, and coworkers are considered essential for

training transfer and skill maintenance (Aguinis and Kraiger, 2009; Burke and

Hutchins, 2007). Typically, these predictors of training effectiveness appear in

researchers’ models either one at a time, or paired (e.g. supervisor support and coworker

support; Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005). The current study represents a step forward in

understanding the social context of training transfer by testing a model whereby all three

sources of support (organization, supervisor, and coworkers) are included in the same

model.

Although it is unlikely that the sources of support will substitute for one another, their

influences may be different. Support from the organization is both distal and diffuse (e.g.

‘‘Help is available from the organization when I have a problem’’; Eisenberger et al., 1986)

which may lead to a weaker influence on transfer. Support originating from the supervisor

may have an episodic or punctuated character, with discussions before and after training,

and periodic checks of progress. This intermittence may weaken supervisors’ influence on

their subordinates’ skill maintenance and transfer.

Conversely, coworkers are proximal to their colleagues, in immediate contact with them, and

of equal status. Their influence on peers’ work outcomes is sizeable, even when controlling

for leader influences (e.g. Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008). As a result, the influence of one’s

coworkers on training transfer may be stronger than the one coming from the organization

and the supervisor, precisely because of the continuous flux of information and other critical

resources originating laterally (from colleagues).

Extending findings in prior research connecting sources of support with training

effectiveness, I investigate the following research questions:

DOI 10.1108/00197851011013724 VOL. 42 NO. 1 2010, pp. 53-56, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 53

Dan S. Chiaburu is a PhD

Candidate at Smeal

College of Business, The

Pennsylvania State

University, University Park,

Pennsylvania, USA.

B Is coworker support positively related to training transfer, over and above the influence of

organizational support and supervisor support?

B Is coworker support positively related to training maintenance, over and above the

influence of organizational support and supervisor support?

Research design

To respond to these questions, I collected data from one work organization in the USA.

Full-time employees attending professional development training programs were asked

questions at two points in time – immediately after the program, and 12 weeks after the

training. The results are based on 440 questionnaires (49.16 percent response, based on

895 respondents targeted).

The social context-related predictors were organizational support (a ¼ 0:84, four items;

Eisenberger et al., 1986), supervisor support (a ¼ 0:95, seven items; Yarnall, 1998), and

coworker support (a ¼ 0:67, two items; Noe and Schmitt, 1986). I measured training

effectiveness with scales focusing on training transfer (a ¼ 0:87, five items; Facteau et al.,

1995) and training maintenance (a ¼ 0:83, four items; Gist et al., 1991).

Results

The patterns of bivariate correlations were consistent with the proposed hypothesis: training

transfer and maintenance correlations with organizational support (r ¼ 0:22, r ¼ 0:18) and

supervisor support (r ¼ 0:33, r ¼ 0:24) were weaker than the ones with coworker support

(r ¼ 0:43, r ¼ 0:49; all p , 0:01). The pattern of results held when the prediction of transfer

and maintenance by the three independent variables was examined using stepwise

regression. Coworker support predicted both training transfer (b ¼ 0:44, p , 0:001,

adjusted R 2 ¼ 0:20) and maintenance (b ¼ 0:47, p , 0:001, adjusted R 2 ¼ 0:22).

Supervisor support added only marginally to the explained variance of training transfer

(DR 2 ¼ 0:03, b ¼ 0:21, p , 0:001) and training maintenance ðDR 2 ¼ 0:01, b ¼ 0:11,

p , 0:05). Organizational support did not explain additional variance in training

effectiveness.

Given the overall pattern of results, the answer to both research questions was in the

affirmative: coworker support is more important than the other two forms of support for both

training maintenance and transfer. In an effort to refine the explanation, I tested whether

motivation to transfer (a ¼ 0:87, five items; Noe and Schmitt, 1986) acted as a mediator

between support and training outcomes; however, my contention was not supported by the

data.

Discussion

In conclusion, the study demonstrates that coworkers are more important for training transfer

and maintenance than both support from the organization and the supervisor. This assertion

should be qualified by future studies examining why this relationship appears. It is possible

that coworkers are proximal and therefore more influential for a variety of work outcomes,

including training transfer and maintenance. Their support can be translated into training

‘‘ . . . the influence of one’s coworkers on training transfer maybe stronger than the one coming from the organization andthe supervisor . . . ’’

PAGE 54 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 42 NO. 1 2010

effectiveness through a variety of mechanisms, including facilitating the flow of information

toward their peer or upholding training transfer-related norms.

Future studies may examine whether this influence is present for all types of skills, and

whether it is maintained for time periods longer than twelve weeks. Data collected from

sources other than self-reports and from multiple organizations may also be beneficial to

increase the external validity of the current findings. It will be also beneficial to create a more

detailed classification of coworker supportive behaviors and determine which support

dimensions have a stronger relationship with training effectiveness. It is yet to be determined

whether providing help or information to a coworker works better for training transfer than

offering a word of encouragement or boosting one’s colleagues’ self-confidence.

Practical implications

Because of the importance of coworkers for both a broad range of outcomes (e.g. Chiaburu

and Harrison, 2008) and for training transfer (for recent reviews, see Aguinis and Kraiger,

2009; Burke and Hutchins, 2007), training professionals may start considering strategies

targeted at improving coworker support. Indeed, according to recent research, coworkers

represent important, yet neglected, stakeholders who can influence performance (Broad,

2006). Moreover, support originating from peers is positioned as one of the most important

emergent practices (e.g. ‘‘trainees learn best from peers through a variety of means’’) in

training transfer (Burke and Hutchins, 2008, p. 115). The additional empirical evidence

presented in this study should stimulate the development of interventions situated laterally

(at coworker level).

References

Aguinis, H. and Kraiger, K. (2009), ‘‘Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams,

organizations, and society’’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 451-74.

Broad, M.L. (2006), ‘‘Improving performance in complex organizations’’, Industrial and Commercial

Training, Vol. 38, pp. 322-9.

Burke, L.A. and Hutchins, H.M. (2007), ‘‘Training transfer: an integrative literature review’’, Human

Resource Development Review, Vol. 6, pp. 263-96.

Burke, L.A. and Hutchins, H.M. (2008), ‘‘A study of best practices in training transfer and proposed

model of transfer’’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 107-28.

Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R.T. and Kudisch, J.D. (1995), ‘‘The influence of

general perceptions of the training environment on pre-training motivation and perceived transfer of

training’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1-25.

Chiaburu, D.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2008), ‘‘Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and

meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance’’, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 1082-103.

Chiaburu, D.S. and Marinova, S.V. (2005), ‘‘What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal

orientation, training self-efficacy and organization supports’’, International Journal of Training and

Development, Vol. 9, pp. 110-23.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), ‘‘Perceived organizational support’’,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-7.

‘‘ . . . coworkers are proximal and therefore more influential for avariety of work outcomes . . . ’’

VOL. 42 NO. 1 2010 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj PAGE 55

Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), ‘‘Effects of self-efficacy and post-training

intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills’’, Personnel Psychology,

Vol. 44, pp. 837-61.

Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), ‘‘The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of a

model’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 497-523.

Yarnall, J. (1998), ‘‘Line managers as career developers: rhetoric or reality?’’, Personnel Review, Vol. 27,

pp. 378-95.

About the author

Dan S. Chiaburu is a PhD Candidate at The Pennsylvania State University. His recentresearch on coworker behaviors was recently published in the Journal of AppliedPsychology. As a practitioner with interest in optimizing training transfer, he won theAmerican Society for Training and Development (ASTD) Excellence in Research-to-PracticeAward (Practitioner Category) in 2004. Dan S. Chiaburu can be contacted at:dchiaburu@psu.edu

PAGE 56 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 42 NO. 1 2010

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints