A Supervisors' Perspective on Their Role in Transfer of Training

• Author: Filip Dochy,Eva Kyndt,Soraya Vreye,Natalie Govaerts
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21286
• Date: 01 December 2017
• Published date: 01 December 2017

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 28, no. 4, Winter 2017 © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21286 515

QUALITATIVE STUDY

A Supervisors’ Perspective on

Their Role in Transfer of Training

Natalie Govaerts , Eva Kyndt , Soraya Vreye , Filip Dochy

The literature has indicated that support of the supervisor is critical for

employees to transfer the competences developed during training to their

job. However, little is known about which specific supervisor behaviors

and attitudes enhance transfer of training. An earlier systematic literature

review demonstrated the multidimensionality of supervisor support and

discerned 24 categories. The aim of this empirical study is to validate this

multidimensional framework and to discover what supervisor support

means in practice by exploring how supervisors take up their role in

transfer of training. The present study reports on a qualitative study in

which 16 supervisors were interviewed about how they experience and

display support in training transfer. Findings show that the majority of

the 24 categories of specific supervisor support are provided in practice.

However, it appears that, particularly, involvement in training selection,

coaching learning and transfer, and participation in training characterize

the role of the supervisor in transfer of training. The findings furthermore

reveal 83 specific approaches, strategies, actions, and attitudes that

supervisors report to use to enact each particular category of support for

transfer of training.

Key Words: leader behavior , leadership , qualitative research , supervisor

support , transfer of training , work environment

Nowadays, organizations make large investments in training and development

in order to sustain organizational growth and competitive advantage and to

equip employees with the necessary skills and knowledge to become more

employable, productive, and innovative (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, &

Ketchen, 2011 ; Hurt, 2016 ). On average, European organizations spend 1.6%

of their labor costs on training (4th Continuing Vocational Training Survey

[CVTS4]; Eurostat, 2010 ). However, these training budgets do not automati-

cally lead to improved individual and organizational effectiveness. For training

516 Govaerts, Kyndt, Vreye, Dochy

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

to be effective, it is essential that a substantial part of what was learned be

transferred to the employees’ daily practice. More specifically, transfer of train-

ing refers to the extent to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills,

and attitudes learned from training in their job (Newstrom, 1986 ). Unfortu-

nately, transfer estimates reported in training research and in practice indicate

a poor return on investment (Baldwin, Ford, & Blume, 2017 ; Hurt, 2016 ).

This so-called transfer problem has given rise to a steady stream of

research investigating various factors that influence the transfer of training. The

theoretical foundation of this research is formed by the seminal model of Bald-

win and Ford ( 1988 ), which identified three sources of influence: characteris-

tics of the trainee, characteristics of the training design, and work environment

characteristics. Each of these aspects has an influence on the direct output of

training, namely, the learning and retention of the training program. In turn,

this will create conditions for transfer—the generalization of the learned mate-

rial and its maintenance after training—that can also be directly affected by

the characteristics of the trainee and the work environment. Hence, in order

to maximize the transfer of training, different factors have to interact, not only

during training, but also before and after training has taken place (Lim & Mor-

ris, 2006 ; Sitzmann & Weinhardt, 2015 ). In other words, it is not only the

delivery, but also the design and implementation of the training program that

matters (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012 ). Therefore, as

the desired outcome of a training program, transfer is not a one-time-only

event but a complex process extending over different time periods.

One of the variables within the work environment that has been found to

be of vital importance throughout the transfer process is supervisor support

(e.g., Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010 ; Dermol & Cater, 2013 ; Gross-

man & Salas, 2011 ; Huang, Blume, Ford, & Baldwin, 2015 ). Overall, it has

been shown that support provided by the supervisor promotes the transfer

of training. A lack of support from the supervisor could even have a negative

impact on the transfer process (Hawley & Barnard, 2005 ).

Despite the demonstrated importance of supervisor support, the majority

of previous research, however, has only examined the generic, overall influ-

ence of supervisor support on transfer of training. This means that supervisor

support is mostly measured as a one-dimensional construct where specific

types and timing of support are not taken into account. For that reason, it has

been argued that there is a lack of understanding about the role of the supervi-

sor in the different phases of training (i.e., before, during, and after), as well

as about the specific behavior and attitudes of the supervisor that facilitate

transfer (Lancaster, Di Milia, & Cameron, 2013 ; Nijman, Nijhof, Wognum, &

Veldkamp, 2006 ; Van Der Klink, Gielen, & Nauta, 2001 ). In response to this,

Govaerts and Dochy ( 2014 ) conducted a systematic literature review regard-

ing the role of the supervisor in training transfer and discerned 24 catego-

ries of specific supervisor support, such as feedback, goal setting, informal

reinforcement, and providing opportunities to practice. However, this

Supervisors’ role in transfer of training 517

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

theoretical account of the multidimensionality of supervisor support has not

yet been empirically validated. In addition, detailed knowledge about how

supervisors understand their role in and how they actually deal with facili-

tating transfer from training to the workplace is still quite limited (Ellström,

2012 ). Moreover, while numerous studies have been conducted on the broad

topic of supervisor support in transfer of training, these studies have mainly

explored training transfer from the perspective of the employees, rather than

from the perspective of the supervisor (e.g., Lancaster et al., 2013 ; Lim &

Johnson, 2002 ; Simosi, 2012 ). As a consequence, most studies take a reactive

approach by assessing employees’ responses to supervisor support practices,

and thus little is known about the various practices that originate from the

supervisors in order to facilitate the transfer of training. Hence, in order to

fully comprehend supervisor support in training transfer, research should also

take into account the supervisor ’ s perspective and explore how supervisors

experience and display support in training transfer.

The aim of this study, therefore, is to explore the lived experience of

supervisors in supporting their employees to transfer training back to the

workplace and link them to the 24 categories of specific supervisor support

suggested by Govaerts and Dochy ( 2014 ). Thus, this study contributes to the

literature by validating the multidimensional framework of supervisor support

of Govaerts and Dochy and by discovering the meaning of supervisor support

in practice and describing it from the viewpoint of the supervisors themselves.

Supervisor Support and Transfer of Training

In their seminal work, Baldwin and Ford ( 1988 ) identified supervisor support

as a critical work environment variable affecting training transfer. Also, sub-

sequent transfer models developed by other HRD scholars, such as Holton,

Bates, and Ruona ’ s Learning Transfer System Inventory ( 2000 ), included

supervisor support as an important factor that can substantially enhance

or inhibit transfer of training. Ever since, supervisor support has received

continuing interest as a transfer-influencing construct. For example, Holton

and colleagues focused on developing an instrument that measures, among

other factors, trainees’ perceptions of the support they received from their

supervisor (e.g., Bates, Holton, & Hatala, 2012 ; Holton, Bates, Bookter, &

Yamkovenko, 2007 ). Moreover, over the past three decades several studies

have been conducted on the nature of the relationship between supervisor

support and transfer of training, and the majority of the results indicated a

positive relationship (e.g., Al-Eisa, Furayyan, & Alhemoud, 2009 ; Chiaburu,

Van Dam, & Hutchins, 2010 ; Cromwell & Kolb, 2004 ; Ellström & Ellström,

2014 ; Gumuseli & Ergin, 2002 ; Heilmann, Bartczak, Hobbs, & Leach, 2013 ;

Nijman et al., 2006 ; Sookhai & Budworth, 2010 ; Zamani, Ataei, & Bates,

2016 ). In addition to the direct effects, there are also studies that pointed to an

indirect effect of support of the supervisor on transfer of training. An indirect