Training group diversity and training transfer: A psychological safety perspective

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21372
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Author: Carsten Christoph Schermuly,Laura Elisabeth Creon
• Date: 01 December 2019

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Training group diversity and training transfer:

A psychological safety perspective

Laura Elisabeth Creon | Carsten Christoph Schermuly

SRH University of Applied Sciences Berlin,

Berlin, Germany

Correspondence

Laura Elisabeth Creon, SRH University of

Applied Sciences Berlin, Ernst-Reuter-Platz

10, 10587 Berlin, Germany.

Email: laura.creon@srh.de

Abstract

Effective training transfer continues to be a challenge in

human resource development (HRD). In this study, we

examined the diversity of the training group as a predictor

for training transfer because it has been shown to predict

team performance in the work context. We compared

objective and subjective diversity measures (diversity

faultlines and perceived subgroups) and examined the pro-

cess by looking at psychological safety and team learning

behavior. A sample of 364 training participants in 58 training

groups participated at two different times, at the end of

each training and 2 months later. Multilevel structural equa-

tion modeling revealed a negative serial indirect relationship

between perceived subgroups and training transfer via psy-

chological safety and team learning behavior. No relation-

ships were found with diversity faultlines. These results

indicate that training transfer decreases the more the par-

ticipants perceive their group to be split into subgroups,

which can be explained with less psychological safety and

team learning behavior. We encourage HRD professionals

to consider in advance how to avoid in-training subgroup

perceptions and support psychological safety to enhance

training transfer.

KEYWORDS

diversity faultlines, human resource development, perceived

subgroups, psychological safety, team learning behavior, training

transfer

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21372

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2019;30:583–603. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 583

1|INTRODUCTION

In this complex and rapidly changing world, employees constantly need to learn new skills to overcome mounting

challenges (Maurer, 2002). Participating in training is a common way to approach this necessity. The average

employee spends about four full working days per year in training (Ho, 2018). Hence, human resource development's

(HRD) expenses for training programs are high. In 2017, for example, an average of 1,296 US dollars was spent per

employee (Ho, 2018). However, meta-analyses show that there is only a small relationship between what is learned

in training and what is transferred to the workplace and retained over time (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett Jr.,

Traver, & Shotland, 1997; Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010). Finding ways to enhance training transfer, and,

consequently, making those investments pay off, is an important challenge to address.

There have been important contributions to research on training transfer, but gaps remain (Baldwin, Kevin

Ford, & Blume, 2017). Thirty years ago, Baldwin and Ford (1988) introduced a model of training transfer, which lists

trainee characteristics (e.g., motivation), training design (e.g., content), and workplace environment (e.g., support) as

predictors of training transfer. While these are important factors, there is still a need to study further predictors for

training transfer to understand how training participants learn (Arthur Jr., Bennett Jr., Edens, & Bell, 2003; Baldwin

et al., 2017; Donovan, 2014). In addition, there is a recent call for examining how the training group affects training

transfer to gain a multilevel perspective (B. S. Bell, Tannenbaum, Ford, Noe, & Kraiger, 2017).

One aspect that may be of particular interest is the composition of the training group—in other words, its diver-

sity. The literature on diversity and the literature on training transfer have mostly evolved separately. Combining

them could prove fruitful for HRD. In the work context, team diversity has been shown to be an important predictor

for team performance (e.g., S. T. Bell, Brown, Colaneri, & Outland, 2018; S. T. Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs,

2011; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). In the training context, there are only a few studies that examine the role of train-

ing group diversity in training outcomes with conflicting results and limited methodological rigor. For example, one

study found a negative indirect relationship between training group diversity (perceived subgroups) and learning suc-

cess mediated through relationship conflict (Schermuly & Schölmerich, 2018): the higher the perception of subgroups

was, the weaker was the learning success. However, the study used retrospective trainer ratings to explore the rela-

tionship and focused on proximal outcomes such as learning success, instead of training transfer. Another study

found no relationship between the gender composition of the training group and knowledge acquisition using archi-

val data (S. T. Bell, Towler, & Fisher, 2011). This study aims to overcome the methodological restrictions of previous

studies by consulting training participants directly instead of trainers or archival data, by collecting data at two time

points instead of cross-sectionally, and by examining training transfer as opposed to proximal learning outcomes.

To understand how training group diversity is related to training transfer, we investigate the process. A recent

review identified the learning process in training groups as an important gap to address (Baldwin et al., 2017). We

draw from the model of team learning (MTL; Edmondson, 1999) to explain the process between training group diver-

sity and training transfer. The MTL states that team performance is preceded by a feeling of psychological safety,

which, in turn, affects team learning behavior. To feel psychologically safe means to believe that interpersonal risks

can be taken and will not be punished by team members (Edmondson, 1999). This means that team members will,

for example, only voice their opinion if they do not need to fear being perceived as incompetent (Edmondson, 2002).

We argue that the same process occurs in training sessions: when training group participants first meet, they are

eager to make a good impression. The objective or perceived similarity with the others serves as cues regarding how

much interpersonal risk they can take. This shapes their perception of psychological safety and their learning behav-

ior. To date, psychological safety in training groups has not received a lot of attention. We aim to close this gap in

the training literature by testing whether the application of the MTL to the training context is valid and fruitful.

Finally, we aim to contribute to the diversity literature by joining the discussion on how to conceptualize diver-

sity. There are two ways to define diversity: as objective and subjective diversity (D. van Knippenberg, De Dreu, &

Homan, 2004). We compare both definitions because they each provide incremental information about a team

584 CREON AND SCHERMULY