This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original publication in pagination and typographical detail. Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation to Transfer Training Author: Andreas Gegenfurtner and Hans Gruber Title: Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation to Transfer Training Year: 2008 Book: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice Across Europe Version: Author s final draft Please cite the original version: Gegenfurtner, A., & Gruber, H. (2008). Antecedents of extrinsic motivation to transfer training. In H. Malloch (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice Across Europe. Lille: IESEG School of Management.
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 2 Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation to Transfer Training Andreas Gegenfurtner and Hans Gruber Abstract: Training aimed at raising employees skills and enhancing employability is an important tool for human resource development practitioners. The transfer of trained contents to the workplace is not trivial, however. Trainees motivation to apply newly acquired skills and competencies on the job plays a central role in the transfer of training process. This paper presents a study aimed at assessing antecedents of extrinsic motivation to transfer immediately at the end of the training. Based on organismic integration theory and expectancy theory, two types of extrinsic motivation to transfer training were distinguished: integrated regulation of transfer motivation and external regulation of transfer motivation. To investigate the research question What predicts the two types of extrinsic motivation to transfer?, relations were examined with attitudes toward training content, relatedness and instructional satisfaction. 445 subjects were trained in 23 occupational health and safety training sessions. Immediately before and after the training session, the subjects completed multi-item questionnaires. The non-normal missing data set was analysed using factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The findings indicate that external regulation was predicted by attitudes toward training content, and that integrated regulation was affected by attitudes, relatedness, instructional satisfaction and external regulation. The initially hypothesised structural equation model was post-hoc specified according to Lagrange Multiplier test results. The final model showed considerably good fit, matching the proposed cutoff values (χ2 = 3678.76, df = 253, CFI =.96, RMSEA =.04 with CI =.03,.04) and was further validated by comparing it to two equivalent alternative models. In concluding, the paper discusses the findings with reference to methodological considerations, draws implications for HRD practices in organisations and elaborates challenges for future research on motivation to transfer training. Key words: Motivation to transfer; organisational training; integrated regulation; external regulation. Introduction Raising skills levels and enhancing employability are among human resource development (HRD) missions in work organisations. These missions cover the design and implemenation of training programmes. Factors affecting the effectiveness of training programmes are widely studied in HRD literature (see, inter alia, Burke and Hutchins 2007; Salas and Cannon- Bowers 2001); among these factors, trainees motivation to transfer the training content to the
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 3 workplace has a central role in the transfer of training process. Research investigating motivational influences on training transfer only recently have overcome the temptation to use just one single theory as fundament for examining motivation to transfer. For example, Chiaburu and Lindsay (2008) used self-efficacy and instrumentality to study trainees cognition and transfer motivation while Smith, Jayasuriya, Caputi and Hammer (2008) employed goal theory to understand motivation for training and transfer. A combination of different motivation theories, it is proposed, can take into consideration a wider range of motivational forces influencing trainees transfer intentions than a single theory alone (Kanfer 1990; Gegenfurtner et al., 2009; Latham 2007). Therefore, in this paper, we present a study that tested a combination of expectancy theory (Vroom 1964) and organismic integration theory (Ryan and Deci 2000) to conceptualise motivation to transfer training. In the first part of the paper, we delineate the theoretical basement needed to study extrinsic motivation to training. In the second part, we identify and outline determinants of transfer motivation. In the third part, we present the methods used to test our hypotheses. The fourth part reports the results obtained. Finally, in the last part of the paper, we discuss the findings with reference to methodological considerations, draw implications for HRD practices in organisations and elaborate challenges for future research on motivation to transfer training. Motivation to transfer training Research on training and development has aimed for more than 30 years to identify meaningful factors affecting the transfer of trained knowledge and skills to the workplace. Noe (1986) identified motivation to transfer as a key concept. He defined it as the trainees desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in the training program on the job (Noe 1986, 743). Since then many investigators emphasised the importance of transfer motivation for successful transfer of training (e.g., Baldwin and Ford 1988; Burke and Hutchins 2007; Holton, Bates and Ruona 2000; Latham 2007). Despite a broad consensus on the importance of motivation for successful training transfer, few studies exist which explicitly analyse motivation to transfer and its antecedents (Egan, Yang and Bartlett 2004; Rowold 2007; Seyler, Holton, Bates, Burnett and Carvalho 1998). While some predictors are well specified (e.g., self-efficacy: pre- and post-training effects, general and performance self-efficacy), others remain compositive and chunky (e.g., satisfaction). Many existing studies conceive transfer motivation as one-dimensional construct. Most of them refer to Vroom s Valence Instrumentality Expectancy framework (VIE; 1964) as single theoretical base. In this study, we combine VIE theory with organismic integration theory (OIT) to develop a more robust theoretical base of transfer motivation. (a) Using OIT, motivation to transfer can be measured not only according to its quantity (i.e., high and low transfer motivation) but also according to its quality (i.e., different types of extrinsic motivation to transfer). This differentiation builds a new dimension in studying transfer motivation. (b) Using Vroom s VIE theory, the components instrumentality and valence are added. Although instrumentality also plays a part in OIT, valence is underrepresented and better defined in VIE. The aspect of valence is seen as an important part for the transfer of training. For example, only if a trainee considers the performance improvement that may result from applying training content on the job (instrumentality) as useful and worthwhile (valence), transfer of training will occur. This study employs definitions offered by Kanfer (1990) who described instrumentalities as perceived relationships between (transfer) performance and second-level
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 4 outcomes such as pay, promotion or praise. Valence is described as the anticipated attractiveness of each second-level outcome (Kanfer 1990, 115). Together, the different styles of motivational regulation in OIT complemented by the instrumentality and valence concepts of the VIE build a solid framework for a transfer motivation theory. The application of this eclectic approach was done by investigating two forms of extrinsic motivation to transfer based upon the self-determination continuum (Deci & Ryan 2000; Ryan & Deci 2000): external regulation and integrated regulation. This selection was made because the context of (profit and not-for-profit) work organisations is likely to create extrinsic motivation (Baard 2002). Within extrinsic motivation, external regulation represents the most controlled motivation, and integrated regulation reflects the most autonomous motivation. Hence, these two concepts are regarded as suitable in best presenting the different nature of controlled and autonomous motivation in transferring training content to the workplace (Deci and Ryan 2000; Gagné and Deci 2005). Both types are specified in turn. External regulation to transfer The least autonomous and most controlled form of extrinsic motivation to transfer is external regulation. This is the classic instance of being motivated for training transfer to attain positive end states (rewards, money) or to avoid negative end states (sanctions). In accord with OIT, external regulation to transfer is seen to have an external perceived locus of causality (Ryan and Deci 2000). In this study, external regulation to transfer was operationalised in terms of instrumentality and valence. (a) Two items assessed whether trainees perceived that the successful application of training content was linked with approval from their boss or with financial rewards. (b) Another two items measured the valence, i.e., the level of personal importance trainees associated with those instrumentalities. Together, these two item pairs are proposed to be appropriate for examining the degree to which trainees have controlled motivation for transferring training. Integrated regulation to transfer In contrast to external regulation, integrated regulation is the most autonomous and least controlled form of extrinsic motivation to transfer. Integrated extrinsic motivation to transfer shares many aspects with intrinsic motivation because behaviors (i.e., applying training content on the job) are performed volitionally and have an internal perceived locus of causality (Ryan and Deci 2000). However, integrated motivated behaviors are done due to the expectation of personally important outcomes (instrumentalities) rather than due to inherent interest or enjoyment. Again, two item pairs were used to operationalise integrated regulation to transfer. (a) Two items measured the extent to which trainees perceive the application of training content to be a personal challenge and to which the application was linked with the possibility to learn much. (b) Another two items assessed the level of personal importance associated with those instrumentalities. Together, these two item pairs are proposed to be appropriate for examining the degree to which trainees are autonomously motivated for transferring training.
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 5 Figure 1. Hypothesized model and relationships. Antecedents of extrinsic motivation to transfer training This study aims at investigating the following research question: What predicts the two dimensions of extrinsic transfer motivation directly after training? To answer this research question, a theoretical model was developed. The causal paths of the model are illustrated in Figure 1. In the right part of the model, the two dimensions of extrinsic motivation to transfer are presented, external regulation and integrated regulation to transfer. The left part of Figure 1 displays the influence of three predictor variables. The two dimensions of transfer motivation were described in the previous section. The predictor variables are addressed in turn: attitudes toward training content, relatedness, instructional satisfaction and demographic variables. Attitudes toward training content Traditionally, research on training and development examines trainees attitudes toward training content as an outcome variable as many training programmes in different domains intend to enhance trainees attitudes toward certain topics. For example, medical training programmes aim at improving participants attitudes toward certain methods of treatment. The only attitudes that have been investigated associated with transfer motivation were attitudes toward training in general (Bates 2001; Naquin and Holton 2002; Rowold 2007; Seyler et al. 1998). The measure of attitudes toward training in these studies reflects attitudes trainees have toward learning in training and toward training as an HRD tool in general and not to attitudes toward the specific content of a single training programme. Hence, the relationship between attitudes toward training content and motivation to transfer training has not been examined so far. For this study, we conceptualised attitudes toward training content, i.e., attitudes toward occupational health and safety, with items measuring trainee s (a) perceived personal importance of the contents for daily work, (b) wish to contribute to enhance safety of the work area, (c) knowledge of reasons to do so and (d) feelings of responsibility and moral
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 6 commitment toward occupational health and safety. It was hypothesised that positive attitudes toward training content are substantial predictors of both external and integrated regulation of transfer. More positive attitudes toward occupational health and safety should increase the motivation to transfer the contents to the workplace owing to the expectation of rewards (external) and further learning possibilities (integrated). H 1: Attitudes toward training content are positively related with external regulation to transfer (1a) and integrated regulation to transfer (1b). Attitudes toward training content were also assumed to be related with instructional satisfaction and relatedness. (a) If trainees have positive attitudes toward occupational health and safety, they enter occupational health and safety training with a positive mood and, thus, are more open to instructional methods and activities during training. Accordingly, more open-minded trainees are more satisfied with the training instruction methods which, in turn, lead to positive attitudes toward occupational health and safety training content. (b) If safety inspectors feel valued and accepted by their workplace colleagues, this feeling of relatedness is linked to the job content, i.e., to occupational health and safety. In turn, more positive attitudes yield better job performance as safety inspector which may then be more valued by peers and supervisors. H 2: Attitudes toward training content are positively related with instructional satisfaction (2a) and relatedness (2b). Relatedness The satisfaction of basic needs is a central issue in self-determination theory and more specifically addressed in basic needs theory (Ryan and Deci 2000). Deci and Ryan identified three needs: the needs for autonomy, for competence and for relatedness. In training and development, autonomy is the only need that has been studied so far in its relationship to transfer motivation (Axtell, Maitlis and Yearta 1997; Leitl and Zempel-Dohmen 2006). An investigation of the relationships between transfer motivation and the needs for competence and relatedness is still lacking. Relatedness was included in this study because it was found to be more central for the internalisation of extrinsic motivation than the two other basic needs (Ryan and Deci 2000; Ryan, Stiller and Lynch 1994). Relatedness was conceptualised with items measuring the degree to which trainees (a) feel appreciated by colleagues, (b) perceive the work climate to be helpful and cooperative and (c) believe that their professional view and opinion on occupational health and safety issues is considered important for peers and supervisors. Theoretical work suggested a positive relationship between relatedness and integrated extrinsic motivation (Ryan et al. 1994). Because internalisation is more present in integrated regulation than in external regulation, which is internalised only to a very low degree, it is assumed that relatedness is a substantial predictor of integrated regulation to transfer. H 3: Relatedness is positively related with integrated regulation to transfer.
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 7 Instructional satisfaction Research on training and development has long been examining trainee satisfaction with the training programme. For example, in Kirkpatrick s four-level model, satisfaction was, and still is, one element of training reactions that must be evaluated as an important training criterion (Kirkpatrick 1959). In the meantime, Alliger and colleagues showed in two metaanalyses that the proposed relationships in Kirkpatrick s model do not receive sufficient empirical support, which is why it is now widely seen as flawed (Alliger and Janak 1989; Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver and Shotland 1997). Nevertheless, satisfaction is still considered a relevant affective reaction measure and is regularly examined in training evaluations; however, as compositive variable although prior research identified no less than seven dimensions of trainee satisfaction: with topics and contents, with the instructor, with instructional methods and activities, with learning objectives, with planned action and transfer, with course materials and with logistical matters (Bassi & van Buren 1999; Lim & Morris 2006). Several researchers identified significant effects of overall training satisfaction to transfer motivation (Burke 1997; Kuchinke 2000; Warr, Allan and Birdi 1999). These findings indicate that trainees affective reactions toward the training programme have a general impact on their motivational-volitional states to use the trained knowledge and skills on the job. However, Lim and Morris (2006) note that overall training satisfaction is a rather global construct in need of detailed specification. Therefore, this study specifically examines satisfaction with instructional methods and activities (i.e., instructional satisfaction). Instructional satisfaction was conceptualised as trainees affective reactions toward (a) being motivated for active participation, (b) quality of examples provided by the instructor, (c) possibilities to provide own examples, (d) consideration of trainees working experiences and views and (e) an overall cooperative atmosphere in the training session. Trainees satisfaction with instructional methods and activities is suggested to promote the internalisation of extrinsic motivation. Hence, it is assumed that instructional satisfaction significantly predicts integrated extrinsic motivation because the level of satisfaction with the instructions may promote the desire to learn more by applying the training content at work. H 4: Instructional satisfaction is positively related with integrated regulation to transfer. Demographic variables Research suggests that individual trainee aspects might affect transfer motivation although the effects are small in size: trainee age (Machin and Fogarty 1997; Tai 2006; Warr et al. 1999) as well as organisational and job tenure (Machin and Fogarty 1997; Noe and Wilk 1993; Tziner and Falbe 1993; Warr et al. 1999). It was decided to exclude these variables from the structural model in Figure 1. Trainees demographic and organisational membership characteristics were measured, however, to establish nomological validity. Methods Sample and design Subjects were 445 trainees who attended one of 23 five-day occupational health and safety
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 8 training programmes. They filled in multi-item questionnaires at two measurement points, prior to and at end of training. 18.7% were younger than 30 years (n = 68), 30.0% were between 31 and 40 years old (n = 109), 37.1% were between 41 and 50 years old (n = 135), 13.0% were between 51 and 60 years old (n = 47), 1.1% were elder than 60 years (n = 4). The average job tenure was 86.0 months (7 years and 2 months; SD = 81.3). The majority of trainees had worked with their current employer for up to 5 years (n = 120; 33.1%). Eightytwo trainees had worked with their current employer for 6 to 10 years (22.6%), 60 trainees for 11 to 15 years (16.5%), 47 trainees for 16 to 20 years (13.0%), 54 trainees for 21 years or longer (14.9%). Instruments Multi-item questionnaires were used to assess the constructs. Prior to training, demographic and organisational membership characteristics were measured. At the end of training, all other constructs were measured. Unless otherwise indicated, a 5-point response scale was used for all items, with 1 = do not agree, 2 = do rather not agree, 3 = do partly agree, 4 = do rather agree and 5 = do agree. One item each was used to assess organisational tenure ( How long have you worked with your current employer? ), job tenure ( How long have you been working already in your current position? ) and the subjects age range (up to 30 years old, 31-40 years old, 41-50 years old, 51-60 years old, more than 60 years old). Six items were used to assess participants attitudes toward training content (e.g., I consider it important that occupational health and safety procedures are systematically implemented in my work area ). Cronbach s alpha was.82. Six items were included to assess respondents satisfaction with instructional methods and activities (e.g., I had sufficient possibilities to play a part in the training, e.g., through my own examples ). A 6-point response scale was provided, with 1 = do not agree at all, 2 = do predominantly not agree, 3 = do not agree somewhat, 4 = agree somewhat, 5 = predominantly agree and 6 = agree completely. Cronbach s alpha was.83. Four items were used to assess trainees feelings of relatedness in their specific workplace (e.g., I feel appreciated by my colleagues ). Cronbach s alpha was.82. Four items were included to assess trainees external regulation to transfer (e.g., Successful application of training content is presumably linked with material rewards, such as a financial bonus ). Cronbach s alpha was.74. Four items were used to assess trainees integrated regulation to transfer (e.g., I regard the successful application of the training content as an interesting challenge ). Cronbach s alpha was.84. Analysis The dimensional structure of the variables included was investigated in a two-step approach combining exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the first step, we employed maximum likelihood (ML) as EFA extraction method, OBLIMIN as rotation method and a combination of Kaiser s rule of eigenvalues larger than one, Cattell s scree test and variance proportion of at least 60% as criteria for determining the number of factors. In the second step, CFA was used to evaluate and validate the fit of the measurement models extracted, following cutoff criteria recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999; CFI<.95, RMSEA>.06). With a KMO coefficient =.88, the 23 variables used in the factor analysis
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 9 were found to represent five underlying factors. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to assess the relationships between the five extracted constructs. In SEM, we first specified and validated each measurement model by screening the data for multivariate outliers, normality and multicollinearity as well as by testing construct validity. Second, we specified and validated the structural model by assessing model fit in EQS as well as by comparing the structural model to two alternative equivalent models (Bentler 2005; Lee and Hershberger 1990). Third, while missing data were handled using the direct ML approach, analyses were conducted based on the covariance matrix. Results Preliminary data analysis, descriptive statistics and construct validity Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and inter-correlations of all constructs. In testing for multivariate outlying cases, one multivariate outlier was removed from the sample owing to substantial different contribution to normalised multivariate kurtosis. In testing for multivariate normality, Yuan, Lambert and Fouladi s (2004) normalised estimate = 42.60 is highly suggestive of multivariate non-normality in the sample. In testing for multicollinearity, collinearity analysis revealed tolerance values (0.38 0.71) larger than.10 and variance inflation factors (1.41 2.65) less than 10, hence indicating no evidence for multicollinearity among the data. Construct validity of each measurement model was established assessing convergent, discriminant, nomological and face validity. Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates and intercorrelations of all factors included in the study. Note: Cronbach s alpha values listed in parentheses. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; VE = variance extracted; OT = organisational tenure; JT = job tenure; AT = attitudes toward training content; RE = relatedness; SA = instructional satisfaction; EX = external regulation to transfer; IN = integrated regulation to transfer. *: p <.01; N = 363. Validation of structural model The Yuan-Bentler scaled independence chi-square test for the model resulted in a chi- square score of 3678.8 (df = 253) with CFI =.93 and RMSEA =.05 with confidence interval CI =.04,.06. Although the model had an acceptable fit, it was not as good as expected (i.e., CFI). In addition, Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test results indicated (a) substantial covariance
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 10 between two factor pairs, i.e., between relatedness and satisfaction as well as between external regulation and integrated regulation to transfer, and (b) substantial covariance among a magnitude of error terms. Thus, post-hoc model fitting was done by re-specifying the factorial covariance with external regulation affecting integrated regulation as well as by respecting two error co-variances between EX3,EX4 and IN3,IN4. All re-specifications were based upon theoretical considerations. In comparison to the initial model, the final model showed a slightly better model fit with respect to all indicators, matching the proposed cut-off values (CFI =.96 and RMSEA =.04 with CI =.03,.04). LM test and Wald test (WTest) were conducted to analyse if re-specification was required. While WTest indicated that the re- Figure 2. Final model parameter estimates.
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 11 lation between relatedness and integrated regulation to transfer was of low statistical importance for the model and could be dropped, further re-specification was not made for two reasons. First, the to-be-dropped relation was of theoretical importance for the model. Second, the model showed already considerably good model fit. To avoid over-parameterising the model, it was considered inappropriate to continue fitting the model beyond this level. Hence, the model in Figure 2 displays the final model presenting the parameter estimates of both measurement models and structural model. In sum, external regulation to transfer was found to be affected by attitudes toward training content (β =.44); integrated regulation to transfer was affected by attitudes (β =.43), relatedness (β =.01), instructional satisfaction (β =.35) and external regulation (β =.15). Finally, to avoid confirmation bias and to provide stronger support for the final model, two alternative equivalent models were generated and evaluated. This was done using the replacing rule offered by Lee and Hershberger (1990). While both equivalent models revealed identical goodness-of-fit statistics compared with the final model, the equivalent models were nevertheless perceived as less meaningful in theory. The final model indicated stronger theoretical support and was, therefore, corroborated and confirmed. Discussion The main objective of this study was to test a model that included antecedents of extrinsic motivation to transfer. Using structural equation modeling to analyse data collected in 23 training programmes, the results revealed that trainees motivation (i.e., external regulation and integrated regulation) to use what was learned in a training programme on the job was affected by their attitudes toward the trained contents (hypothesis 1), on their feelings of relatedness in the workplace (hypothesis 3) and on their satisfaction with instructional methods and activities in the training session (hypothesis 4). In addition, attitudes toward training content were found to be positively related with relatedness and instructional satisfaction (hypothesis 2). To summarise, the research question asking for predictors of the two dimensions of extrinsic transfer motivation directly after training could be answered by the study findings. The results regarding demographic and organisational membership characteristics also deserve a brief discussion. Regarding the small and non-significant relations of organisational membership and job tenure to both types of transfer motivation, the findings of previous studies were confirmed (Machin and Fogarty 1997; Noe and Wilk 1993; Tziner and Falbe 1993). In contrast to some of these findings, however, the relations were positive in the present study. Regarding the small and non-significant relationship of trainee age to transfer motivation, prior findings were confirmed (Machin and Fogarty 1997; Tai 2006; Warr et al. 1999). Although measured in two separate dimensions, motivation to transfer was not affected by organisational and job tenure and trainee age. Further, the results suggest that the older the trainees, (a) the more positive their attitudes toward training content, (b) the more related they feel in the workplace and (c) the more satisfied they are with the training methods. Further studies may use these findings to test systematically whether trainee age moderates the relationship between these predictors and transfer motivation. In concluding the paper, we
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 12 outline methodological limitations, lessons learned for HRD managers and training instructors and challenges for future research. Methodological limitations Besides positive aspects arising from the use of structural equation modeling and largesample data (Bentler 2005; Cheng 2001), the study has methodological limitations. First, data on motivation to transfer were studied at only one point in time (directly after training), thus referring to a static perspective. This was appropriate for the study s main goal of examining predictors affecting two types of transfer motivation immediately after training. However, studies have suggested that transfer motivation is not a static construct but a dynamic construct changing over time (Leitl and Zempel-Dohmen 2006). Therefore, this study could offer just one snapshot of trainees motivation at immediate end of training. For instance, the influence of instructional satisfaction may be an important predictor of transfer motivation directly after training, but the influence of instructional satisfaction might decrease in time and, three months later, other factors not investigated in the study may gain stronger effects on transfer motivation. The explanatory power of the results, thus, is limited to the time immediately at the end of the training. Second, this study adapted only two types of the self-determination continuum: external regulation and integrated regulation (Gagné and Deci 2005; Ryan and Deci 2000). The chosen types seemed to be adequate because they are seen to represent best controlled and autonomous motivation with its external and internal locus of causality. However, research on self-determination theory and organismic integration theory identified several other types along a continuum. It is unclear if the revealed relationship of external regulation affecting integrated regulation can be validated when all types of the self-determination continuum are examined simultaneously. Hence, this analysed relationship needs to be seen with respect to this limitation. Finally, the third methodological limitation reflects the use of self-report data. Given the fact that trainees can estimate their own attitudinal and motivational states best by themselves, examination of self-reports seemed to be appropriate in this case. However, research is aware of several biases connected with the use of self-reported data: leniency, social desirability and self-serving bias can harm the objectivity of the self-assessments. Therefore, all data used in this study are seen critically and not expected to be free of distortions. Lessons learned for HRD managers and training instructors If we summarise the results of this study in terms of practical relevance, then two aspects can be highlighted: one for HRD managers and one for training instructors. First, for HRD managers, this study found attitudes toward training content to have large beta weights on external regulation to transfer (β =.44) and integrated regulation to transfer (β =.43). This indicates that the specific attitudes trainees have toward the content of the training programme have a rather strong effect on whether or whether not they are motivated to apply the new knowledge and skills to the workplace. This means that if trainees have more positive attitudes toward the content they are going to be trained in, then they are more likely to transfer the content to the workplace. The transfer of training, then, leads to performance improvement, which in turn leads to better organisational outputs and return of investment (Kearns 2005; Kraiger 2002).
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 13 Second, for training instructors, this study found that instructional satisfaction have moderate beta weights on integrated regulation to transfer (β =.35). This finding highlights the importance of using adequate instructional methods and activities. For instance, feedback and practice were shown to facilitate learning and transfer (Burke and Hutchins 2007; Kuchinke 2000). The satisfaction with these interventions leads to transfer motivation, as shown in this study, and to better application outcomes (Lim and Morris 2006). One major aspect in designing organisational training programmes, thus, is not only to focus on relevant content but also to provide various and diversified instructional techniques and methods. Based upon the items used in this study, such aspects include the following: - encouraging active participation - providing vivid and demonstrative examples - giving trainees the possibility of providing their own examples - taking into account trainees working experiences and views - creating a helpful and cooperative atmosphere These aspects can help to enhance trainees instructional satisfaction and, in turn, enhance the motivation to apply training content in the workplace. Challenges for future research Finally, we discuss two challenges for future research on transfer motivation: (a) the development and validation of a multidimensional scale for measuring transfer motivation and (b) the use of longitudinal study designs for assessing this multidimensional construct and its predictors. Both challenges are described below. First, this study tried to provide a first step in the direction of examining a priori a multidimensional construct of transfer motivation. Based upon organismic integration theory and expectancy theory, external regulation to transfer and integrated regulation to transfer could be identified and validated as distinct factors. To date, motivation to transfer was investigated as a one-dimensional construct and the focus was primarily on determining the mere extent of it, the quantity. In contrast, this study investigated the nature of trainees transfer motivation, the quality. The objective was not to assess the question, How much are the trainees motivated to transfer?, but the question, Of what kind is that transfer motivation?. Hence, this study tried to step beyond the borders of conventional transfer motivation research in broadening current understanding. However, it was just one step. Both scales of integrated regulation and external regulation to transfer clearly show room for improvement. If we look at the validation of the measurement models, we see that the model fit estimates were not as good as expected, especially regarding RMSEA. And although the internal reliability estimates were acceptable (alphas of.75 and.84, respectively), further improvements could raise measure adequacy. Thus, what is needed is, on the one hand, crossvalidation of the two existing scales. On the other hand, the development of more scales regarding the remaining types of the self-determination continuum can help to fully catch the complexity of transfer motivation. As noted, only integrated regulation and external regulation to transfer were measured. What still remains unstudied are introjected regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic regulation to transfer. That is, efforts are needed for the next step, from a two-dimensional to a multidimensional construct of motivation to transfer. The development and validation of a transfer motivation inventory could provide answers for training professionals and for researchers who are interested in the interplay of motivation and
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 14 transfer of training/learning. The second challenge for future transfer motivation research reflects the dynamic nature of motivation. Leitl and Zempel-Dohmen (2006) have already shown the dynamic change of a one-dimensional transfer motivation construct over time. A longitudinal investigation is interesting for two reasons: (a) to measure the change of multidimensional transfer motivation but also (b) to measure changing levels of the predictive variables affecting multidimensional transfer motivation. For instance, the present study identified instructional satisfaction as an important predictor of integrated regulation to transfer directly after training. Interestingly, this training reaction measure was not shown to affect external regulation directly after training. But what remains unstudied is the impact of affective training reaction measures on transfer motivation in varying degrees of time after training. Thus, longitudinal study designs with three or more measurement intervals could examine the stability over time of multidimensional transfer motivation and identify important predictors for each type at different points of time. For example, relatedness was shown to have only light effects on integrated regulation to transfer directly after training. This relationship might be a completely different one if measured three months after training: then, trainees may have already made considerable efforts in applying the training content on the job and may have had experiences with colleagues. Did the trainees feelings of relatedness help to maintain transfer motivation? And, three months after training, does it more strongly affect internal or external motivation? In summary, a process-oriented investigation of the multidimensional construct of transfer motivation with longitudinal study designs could clarify the complexity and the dynamics of motivation to transfer training and its predictors. Hence, a process-oriented multidimensional investigation could meet the challenges of future transfer motivation research. References Alliger, G.M., and E.A. Janak. 1989. Kirkpatrick s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology 42: 331-42. Alliger, G.M., S.I. Tannenbaum, W. Bennett, H. Traver, and A. Shotland. 1997. A metaanalysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology 50: 341-58. Axtell, C.M., S. Maitlis, and S. Yearta. 1997. Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review 26: 201-13. Baard, P.P. 2002. Intrinsic need satisfaction in organizations: A motivational basis of success in for-profit and not-for-profit settings. In Handbook of self-determination research, ed. E.L. Deci and R.M. Ryan, 255-75. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Baldwin, T.T., and J.K. Ford. 1988. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology 41: 63-105. Bassi, L.J., and M.E. van Buren. 1999. The 1999 ASTD state of the industry report. Training and Development 53: 1-22. Bates, R.A. 2001. Public sector training participation: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Training and Development 5: 136-52. Bentler, Peter M. 2005. EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 15 Software. Burke, L.A. 1997. Improving positive transfer: A test of relapse prevention training on transfer outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly 8: 115-28. Burke, L.A., and H.M. Hutchins. 2007. Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review 6: 263-96. Cheng, E.W.L. 2001. SEM being more effective than multiple regression in parsimonious model testing for management development research. Journal of Management Development 20: 650-67. Chiaburu, D.S., and D.R. Lindsay. 2008. Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource Development International 11: 199-206. Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 2000. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11:, 227-68. Egan, T.M., B. Yang, and K.R. Bartlett. 2004. The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly 15: 279-301. Gagné, M., and E.L. Deci. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 331-62. Gegenfurtner, A., K. Veermans, D. Festner, and H. Gruber. 2009. Motivation to transfer training: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review 8: 403-423. Holton, E.F., R.A. Bates, and W.E. Ruona. 2000. Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly 11: 333-60. Hu, L., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1-55. Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, ed. M.D. Dunnette and L. Hough, 75-170. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kearns, P. 2005. From return on investment to added value evaluation: The foundation for organizational learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources 7: 135-45. Kirkpatrick, D.L. 1959. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of American Society for Training and Development 13: 3-9. Kraiger, K. 2002. Decision-based evaluation. In Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development, ed. K. Kraiger, 331-75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Kuchinke, K.P. 2000. The role of feedback in management training settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly 11: 381-401. Latham, G. P. 2007. Work motivation. History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, S., and S. Hershberger. 1990. A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25: 313-34. Leitl, J., and J. Zempel-Dohmen. 2006. Die Bedeutung des Arbeitsumfelds für die Veränderung der Transfermotivation [The impact of work environment on the changing level of motivation to transfer]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 50: 92-102.
Antecedents of Extrinsic Motivation 16 Lim, D.H., and M.L. Morris. 2006. Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly 17: 85-115. Machin, M.A., and G.J. Fogarty. 1997. The effects of self-efficacy, motivation to transfer, and situational constraints on transfer intentions and transfer of training. Performance Improvement Quarterly 10: 98-115. Naquin, S.S., and E.F. Holton. 2002. The effects of personality, affectivity, and work commitment on motivation to improve work through learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly 13: 357-76. Noe, R.A. 1986. Trainees attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review 11: 736-49. Noe, R.A., and S.L. Wilk. 1993. Investigation of the factors that influence employees participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 291-302. Rowold, J. 2007. The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation: Test of a longitudinal model. Human Resource Development Quarterly 18: 9-31. Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 66-78. Ryan, R.M., J. Stiller, and J.H. Lynch. 1994. Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence 14: 226-49. Salas, E., and J.A. Cannon-Bowers. 2001. The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 471-99. Seyler, D.L., E.F. Holton, R.A. Bates, M.F. Burnett, and M.A. Carvalho. 1998. Factors affecting motivation to transfer training. International Journal of Training and Development 2: 2-16. Smith, R., R. Jayasuriya, P. Caputi, and D. Hammer. 2008. Exploring the role of goal theory in understanding training motivation. International Journal of Training and Development 12: 54-72. Tai, W.-T. 2006. Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on trainees training effectiveness. Personnel Review 35: 51-65. Tziner, A., and C.M. Falbe. 1993. Training-related variables, gender and training outcomes: A field investigation. International Journal of Psychology 28: 203-21. Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Warr, P., C. Allan, and K. Birdi. 1999. Predicting three levels of training outcome. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72: 351-75. Yuan, K.-H., P.L. Lambert, and R.T. Fouladi. 2004. Mardia s multivariate kurtosis with missing data. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39: 413-37.