53 Abstract Transfer of learning is a necessary step between learning and performance. This article is based upon a quantitative survey, studying the main transfer inhibiting and enhancing con- ditions from a public management program in the Belgian public sector. The statistical results demonstrate that individual and program charac- teristics determine primarily the transfer of what has been learned. This allows both researchers and practitioners to focus on the most obvious independent variables in order to increase the effectiveness of management and leadership de- velopment, i.e. the link between the program and the general HRM-processes in the organization, the opportunities provided to the participant and the communication towards the participant and his/her colleagues. Apart from that, the impact of the selection procedure for enrolment has a de- termining role on the program’s success. Keywords: management and leadership development, training effectiveness, transfer, hu- man resource development. FIRST THINGS FIRST: FOCUSING ON THE OBVIOUS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Bruno BROUCKER Bruno BROUCKER Assistant Professor, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute, Leuven, Belgium Tel.: 0032-16-37-35.26 E-mail: Bruno.Broucker@kuleuven.be Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 46 E/2015, pp. 53-70 54 1. I ntroduction In the past, the impact of educational programs has been questioned regularly (Broad and Newstrom, 1992; Awoniyi, Griego and Morgen, 2002). Yet, educational investments, in both the public and the private sector, continue to be considered as important human resource development strategies to increase individual and orga- nizational performance. The same goes for management programs and leadership training, where it is assumed that they aff ect management and leadership, and thus performance (Wright and Pandey, 2010; Buelens et al., 2006). The question is whether those programs actually ‘work’, because there needs to be a translation from learning to practice before performance can be aff ected positively. And if so, can we increase that impact by focusing on the dependent variables? That is what this article is about, and its added value is on two fronts. First, most transfer studies have been limited to short term training programs in the private sector (Gilpin-Jackson and Bushe, 2007; Broucker, 2010). The focus of this article is on long term management programs in the public sector and their main inhibiting and enhancing conditions, based on quanti- tative results of a survey taken from Belgian civil servants. Second, this article wants to tackle the question of what factors have to be dealt with primarily in order to en- hance transfer and thus eff ectiveness of management programs in the public sector. This is necessary, since literature suggests that the number of transfer stimulating and inhibiting factors remains large. Even though there is a consensus about the main independent variables, i.e. the individual, the transfer climate and the training pro- gram (Broad and Newstrom, 1992; Holton, 1996; Burke and Hutchins, 2007), the list of sub-factors of those main variables is extremely large, which incorporates the risk of theoretical vagueness and the loss of a clear research focus. Burke and Hutchins (2007) in their review came to a list of 17 factors which have a strong or moderate relationship with transfer, 5 factors with mixed support in the research debate for their infl uence on transfer, 8 factors which have been examined minimally, and 18 factors which need more research. Broucker (2014) also claims that the complexity of the transfer processes and the number of its infl uencing factors may even be higher. 2. Transfer of training: The concept Transfer is often defi ned as ‘the eff ective and continuing application, by trainees to their jobs, of the knowledge and skills gained in the training, both on and off the job’ (Broad and Newstrom, 1992). Broucker (2010) has argued that this defi nition doesn’t make a distinction between diff erent types of educational programs and doesn’t make clear what ‘application’ actually means. Therefore he suggests another defi ni- tion upon which this article will be based: ‘transfer is when acquired knowledge and skills add value that improves job performance’ (Broucker, 2010). Two elements in this defi nition are important: (1) time, since transfer is future-oriented and continu- ing by nature; (2) transfer must be considered as an elementary and conditional step between the learning process and job performance. Several theoretical models have 55 emphasized this sequence of events (Foxon, 1994; Thayer and Teachout, 1995; Konto- ghiorghes, 2004; Pidd, 2004; Broucker, 2014). Transfer studies and conceptual models have, throughout the years, identifi ed and emphasized the importance of three variables in this process (Broucker, 2010): individual characteristics (Quiñones and Holladay, 2003; Pidd, 2002; Lim and John- son, 2002; Ruona, Leimbach, Holton and Bates, 2002), training characteristics (Paek and Hawley, 2006; Ford, Quinoñes, Sego and Sorra, 1992; Broad and Newstrom, 1992) and transfer climate characteristics (Broad and Newstrom, 1992; Awoniyi, Griego and Morgan, 2002; van der Klink, Gielen and Nauta, 2001; Clarke, 2002; Ford et al., 1992; Gumuseli and Ergin, 2002; Quiñones, 1995; Olivero, Bane and Kopelman, 1997). Those variables stand for (1) the individual competencies and motivation to apply what has been learned, (2) the similarity between program and work environment, and (3) the organizational climate of support for the transfer process (i.e. the transfer climate). 3. M ethods 3.1. Data collection The data was collected from a survey taken from 300 Belgian federal civil servants in 2008, graduated from an educational program in public management (the ‘Public Management Program’, hereafter: PUMP) in the period 2001-2007. The entrance to the program was yearly limited to 50 federal civil servants. The main objective of PUMP, commissioned by the federal government, was to contribute to the reform of the federal administration by giving civil servants the necessary knowledge, compe- tencies, skills and att itudes to support the modernization process and therefore pre- paring themselves for a future managerial or leadership role. Simultaneously, PUMP wanted to create an inter- and intradepartmental network of civil servants, enhancing a reform culture and a new way of managerialism (Broucker, 2011). The intensive one-year program contains diff erent sections such as, among others, public manage- ment and leadership courses, exercises aiming at knowledge integration, organiza- tional consultancy tasks and an external internship. The survey-instrument used was based upon the Learning Transfer System Inven- tory, originally created and validated in the United States, measuring the ‘learning transfer system’, which are all the transfer infl uencing factors within the individ- ual, the training program and the organization (Donovan, Hannigan and Deirdre, 2001). It measures 16 factors (see table below) (Holton and Bates, 1998; Holton, Bates and Ruona, 2000), has been translated and validated in Thai (Yamnill and McLean, 2001), Chinese (Chen, 2003), Arab (Bates and Khasawneh, 2005) and French (Devos et al., 2006), and has proven cross-organizational validity (Holton, Chen and Naquin, 2003). 56 Table 1: LTSI scale defi nitions Trainee Characteristics Scales • Learner Readiness: the extent to which individuals are prepared to enter and participate in a training program. • Performance Self-Effi cacy: an individual’s general belief that he is able to change his performance when he wants to. Motivation Scales • Motivation to Transfer Learning: the direction, intensity and persistence of effort towards utilizing in a work setting skills and knowledge learned in training. • Transfer Effort—Performance Expectations: the expectation that effort devoted to transfer will lead to changes in job performance. • Performance—Outcomes Expectations: the expectation that changes in job performance will lead to outcomes valued by the individual. Work Environment Scales • Feedback/Performance Coaching: formal and informal indicators from an organization about an individual’s job performance. • Supervisor/Manager Support: the extent to which managers support and reinforce the use of learning on-the-job. • Supervisor/Manager Sanctions: the extent to which individuals perceive negative responses from managers when applying skills learned in training. • Peer Support: the extent to which peers reinforce and support use of learning on-the-job. • Resistance/openness to Change: the extent to which prevailing group norms are perceived by individuals to resist or discourage the use of skills and knowledge acquired in training. • Personal Outcomes-Positive: the degree to which applying training on the job leads to outcomes that are positive for the individual. • Personal Outcomes-Negative: the extent to which individuals believe that applying skills and knowledge learned in training will lead to outcomes that are negative. Ability Scales • Opportunity to Use Learning: the extent to which trainees are provided with or obtain resources and tasks on the job enabling them to use the skills taught in training. • Personal Capacity for Transfer: the extent to which individuals have the time, energy and mental space in their work lives to make changes required to transfer learning to the job. • Perceived Content Validity: the extent to which the trainees judge the training content to accurately refl ect job requirements. • Transfer Design: the extent to which training has been designed to give trainees the ability to transfer learning to job application and the training instructions match the job requirements. Diff erent steps were taken before launching the survey. First, it was qualitatively tested, using interviews taken from graduates from the Justice Department and from graduates from another program in public management (Van de Kerckhove, 2007) to see whether the factors were relevant for and applicable to the Belgian public sector. Second, the survey was translated by forward translation (Chen, 2003) and pre-tested by interviews taken from a small, yet diverse group of graduates of PUMP. Conse- quently, the questionnaire was adjusted to the specifi cities of PUMP, and elaborated. Since the LTSI only measures transfer inhibiting and stimulating conditions, ques- tions about transfer were added (e.g. ‘I use the knowledge gained from the program in my daily work’). Given that one of the objectives of PUMP was to create a network of civil servants, questions about ‘peer support from student colleagues’ were added. Finally, the survey was sent out on paper, and two reminders were sent as well. 3.2. Results Some descriptive results. The response rate was 62%. A large majority of the respon- dents gave 4 major reasons why they enrolled the program: personal enrichment 57 (25%), motivation to participate in the administration’s reform (14.8%), career perspec- tives (11%) and personal interest (12%). In the survey a distinction was made between the working period of the respondent before his participation in the program and his working period after the program. This is necessary to see whether transfer, because of the program, took place, and because, for some graduates, the time lapse between the program and the survey was about 7 years and career changes might be expected: – 54% of the respondents didn’t participate in reform projects before the program, compared to 43% after the program. The diff erence between both periods was signifi cant, suggesting that participation in reform projects is stimulated by PUMP (sig. t-value = 0.001). This is relevant, given the program’s objective to con- tribute to the reform. – The respondents were asked whether their organization took transfer stimulat- ing initiatives. They answered the question for the organization wherein they were active before the program and for their actual situation. 50.4% and 45.5% indicated that their organization didn’t take any transfer stimulating initiative. – Respectively 18.9% and 32.5% of respondents stated that they were asked to take part in modernization projects, which is rather low, given the program’s objec- tive. – At least 75% of the respondents (1) agreed that PUMP had an added value on the daily work, (2) believed to have the capacities to use PUMP, (3) agreed that PUMP was a necessity for the government, (4) stated that non-use of PUMP wasn’t perceived negatively by their organization, (5) believed in the utility of the educational program. Other results suggested that supervisor support, peer support, added value from the program to the individual career were perceived rather neutral. As a result, it can be stated that PUMP had, for the majority, been transferred to the workplace, but that the transfer climate from the federal organizations could be defi ned as neutral: for most respondents no consequences were linked to the non-use of the program. Factor analysis. Explorative factor analysis with SPSS was conducted, with direct oblique rotation as extraction method (Field, 2006; Ho, 2006). Only factors with an eigenvalue above 1 were selected (Ho, 2006). The way the variables, with their load- ings, are clustered, is demonstrated in the next table. The statistics show that it was reasonable to conduct explorative factor analysis. The KMO Measure of Sampling Ad- equacy provides a value of 0.837 and the Bartlett ’s Test of Sphericity indicates a signif- icance value of 0.000 (Field, 2006). The anti-image correlation matrix demonstrated that the diagonal values were higher than the necessary 0.50 (Field, 2006). The total explained variance by the 18 factors is 71%. The minimum factor loading is 0.30. As a result, the number of lost variables is minimized, and cross loadings are displayed. The few cross loadings can be ignored, since they are inferior to the dominant factor, or because cross loading occurs under a theoretically illogical factor. The table pro- vides the items for each factor, together with the reliability index. 58 Ta bl e 2: It em s an d fa ct or re lia bi lity in di ce s Va ria bl e Lo ad in g Ite m Cr on ba ch ’s al ph a Fa ct or O pp or tu ni ty 2 .7 80 W ith in th e or ga ni za tio n I r ec ei ve d op po rtu ni tie s to u se th e kn ow le dg e ac qu ire d in P UM P 0. 89 8 O pp or tu ni tie s re ce ive d fro m th e or ga ni za tio n to a pp ly PU M P PU M Pv er an tw 1 .7 60 W ith in m y or ga ni za tio n, I wa s, b ec au se o f P UM P, c ha rg ed to c oo pe ra te in m od er ni za tio n pr oj ec ts O pp or tu ni ty 1 .7 56 I r ec ei ve d op po rtu ni tie s to v al or ize P UM P O pp or tu ni ty 3 .7 34 W ith in m y or ga ni za tio n I r ec ei ve d th e po ss ib ilit y to p ro po se c ha ng e in itia tiv es , b as ed o n m y PU M P- ex pe rie nc e Ve ra nt wt ra ns fe r1 .3 65 M y or ga ni za tio n ke pt a n ey e on m e so th at I wo ul d us e PU M P m ax im al ly PU M Pi nz ich t3 .7 37 W ha t I h av e le ar ne d in P UM P he lp s m e in m y wo rk 0. 91 4 Th e pe rc ep tio n th at P UM P ha s a po sit ive in fl u en ce o n th e jo b (tr an sf er ) PU M Pi nz ich t4 .6 73 In m y da ily w or k, I us e, in o ne w ay o r t he o th er , m y ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e an d ex pe rie nc e fro m PU M P PU M Pi nz ich t2 .6 36 PU M P he lp s m e to b et te r m ak e de cis io ns M ot via tio n3 .6 21 Af te r g ra du at in g, I be lie ve d th at P UM P wo ul d he lp m e to d o m y jo b be tte r PU M Pi nz ich t1 .6 15 Si nc e PU M P, I no tic e a ch an ge in m y wa y of w or kin g M ot iva tio n2 .5 57 Af te r P UM P I b el ie ve d PU M P wo ul d in cr ea se m y pe rs on al p er fo rm an ce O rg an isa tie in itia tie f1 .5 22 Be ca us e of P UM P I t ak e m or e qu ick ly in itia tiv es in m y wo rk PU M Pi nz ich t6 .4 99 I u se P UM P in m y wo rk Br ui kb 2 .4 81 PU M P is im m ed ia te ly us ea bl e in m y da ily w or k O rg an isa tie in itia tie f5 .4 71 Be ca us e of P UM P I h av e al re ad y co nt rib ut ed u se fu lly to c er ta in p ro je ct s Se lf- ef fi c ac y2 -.9 30 G en er al ly, I fe el c on fi d en t e no ug h to tr y so m et hi ng n ew in m y wo rk 0. 81 0 Se lf- ef fi c ac y Se lf- ef fi c ac y1 -.9 21 I h av e en ou gh s el f-c on fi d en ce to ta ke n ew in itia tiv es , e ve n if th e re sis ta nc e on th e wo rk pl ac e is hi gh Se lf- ef fi c ac y3 -.5 97 I h av e al wa ys b ee n su re to h av e th e ca pa cit ie s to u se P UM P in m y wo rk Co lle ag ue g ra du at es 3 .9 14 I c on su lt ot he r g ra du at es if I ha ve s pe cifi c q ue st io ns o n th e jo b 0. 87 4 Su pp or t f ro m c ol le ag ue gr ad ua te s Co lle ag ue g ra du at es 2 .9 11 I c on ta ct o th er g ra du at es if I ne ed th ei r e xp er tis e Co lle ag ue g ra du at es 4 .8 11 I f ee l s up po rte d by o th er g ra du at es w he n I a m c on fro nt ed w ith d iffi c ul tie s in m y wo rk Co lle ag ue g ra du at es 1 .6 93 Th e gr ad ua te s re pr es en t a g oo d pr of es sio na l n et wo rk De sig n2 .8 22 Th e tra in er s us ed a lo t o f e xa m pl es to d em on st ra te h ow I co ul d us e PU M P in m y jo b 0. 87 1 Le ve l o f a cc or da nc e be tw ee n PU M P an d th e wo rk pl ac e De sig n3 .7 80 Th e ex er cis es m ad e in P UM P, c la rifi e d ho w I c ou ld a pp ly wh at I ha ve le ar ne d in m y jo b De sig n1 .7 21 Th e tra in er s ha d a cle ar id ea a bo ut h ow I co ul d us e m y ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e Co nt en tv al id ity 4 .6 95 Th e sit ua tio ns d es cr ib ed in P UM P, re se m bl ed th e sit ua tio ns I en co un te r i n m y jo b De sig n4 .6 23 Be ca us e of th ei r t ea ch in g m et ho ds , t he tr ai ne rs g av e m e co nfi d en ce th at I wo ul d be a bl e to us e m y ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e Co nt en tv al id ity 2 .4 53 Th e co nt en t o f t he p ro gr am fi tte d th e pr ac tic e 59 Va ria bl e Lo ad in g Ite m Cr on ba ch ’s al ph a Fa ct or Pe rfo rm an ce 1 -.7 27 In th e or ga ni za tio n wh er e I w or ke d on e wa s ap pr ec ia te d if he d id h is jo b we ll 0. 91 4 Th e at tit ud e of th e or ga ni za tio n to wa rd s pe rfo rm an ce a nd c ha ng e Pe rfo rm an ce 3 -.7 10 Th e or ga ni za tio n wh er e I w or ke d at th e m om en t o f m y pa rti cip at io n, a pp re cia te d go od pe rfo rm an ce s Pe rfo rm an ce 2 -.4 52 Th e or ga ni za tio n wh er e I w or ke d at th e m om en t o f m y pa rti cip at io n ha d an e ye fo r p er so na l pe rfo rm an ce Re sis ta nc e5 -.3 90 Em pl oy ee s wh o try to in itia te n ew w or kin g m et ho ds , w er e di sc ou ra ge d on th e jo b Pe rs on al po sit ive 1 -.3 90 G en er al ly sp ea kin g, th er e wa s sa tis fa ct io n on th e jo b if ne w ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e wa s us ed Re sis ta nc e4 -.3 30 O n th e jo b no -o ne w an te d to d o so m e ef fo rt to c ha ng e th in gs Re sis ta nc e2 .3 25 O n th e jo b em pl oy ee s we re o pe n to c ha ng e, if it w ou ld a m el io ra te th e or ga ni za tio na l pe rfo rm an ce Re sis ta nc e3 .3 06 O n th e jo b ex ist in g wo rk in g m et ho ds w er e pr ef er re d to th e ap pl ica tio n of n ew le ar ne d m et ho ds Re ad in es s2 .8 18 Fr om th e be gi nn in g, I kn ew w ha t I c ou ld e xp ec t f ro m P UM P 0. 82 6 Pr ep ar ed ne ss to th e pr og ra m Re ad in es s1 .8 03 Be fo re th e pr og ra m s ta rte d, I ha d an id ea a bo ut h ow it c ou ld b e us ef ul fo r m y jo b Re ad in es s4 .7 36 Fr om th e be gi nn in g, I kn ew h ow P UM P wo ul d fi t m y wo rk s itu at io n Re ad in es s3 .7 31 Th e ed uc at io na l g oa ls fro m P UM P we re c le ar fr om th e be gi nn in g Re fl e ct io n_ F4 .7 86 PU M P is a re fl e ct io n fra m ew or k fo r t he fu tu re 0. 69 9 PU M P is a re fl e ct io n fra m ew or k fo r t he fu tu re Ti m e2 .7 38 PU M P is a pr oc es s of m at ur at io n O rg an isa tie in itia tie f4 .3 97 PU M P he lp s to in itia te c ha ng e Re fl e ct io n_ F2 -.7 64 Th e fe de ra l a dm in ist ra tio n ne ed s a pr og ra m a s PU M P to re fl e ct a bo ut th e fu tu re o f t he Be lg ia n pu bl ic se ct or 0. 76 7 Th e ex te nt to w hi ch th e fe de ra l g ov er nm en t n ee ds PU M P Re fl e ct io n_ F1 -.7 09 Th e fe de ra l g ov er nm en t n ee ds th e in sig ht w hi ch is p ro vid ed b y PU M P M an ag er su pp or t1 -.7 06 M y su pe rv iso r w as re ce pt ive fo r e ve ry th in g wh at w as le ar ne d in P UM P 0. 58 1 Su pe rv iso r s up po rt M an ag er sa nc tio ns 2 .6 86 M y su pe rv iso r d id n’ t fi n d a pr og ra m lik e PU M P us ef ul M an ag er su pp or t4 -.6 17 M y su pe rv iso r w as in te re st ed in w ha t I le ar ne d fro m P UM P M an ag er su pp or t5 -.5 97 M y su pe rv iso r e xp ec te d m e to u se th e kn ow le dg e fro m P UM P at a m ax im um M an ag er su pp or t2 -.5 53 M y su pe rv iso r e nc ou ra ge d m e to u se P UM P at a m ax im um M ot iva tio n1 -.4 59 Du rin g th e pr og ra m I al re ad y th ou gh t a bo ut h ow I co ul d us e PU M P in m y wo rk M an ag er sa nc tio ns 1 .4 50 M y su pe rv iso r d id n’ t w an t m e to u se w ha t I h ad le ar ne d in P UM P M an ag er su pp or t3 -.4 45 Du rin g th e pr og ra m I ha d di sc us sio ns w ith m y su pe rv iso r a bo ut h ow m y PU M P- ex pe rie nc e co ul d be u se d in th e or ga ni za tio n Pe rs on al po sit ive 2 -.3 23 O n th e jo b it wa s ap pr ec ia te d if I u se d kn ow le dg e fro m P UM P 60 Va ria bl e Lo ad in g Ite m Cr on ba ch ’s al ph a Fa ct or PU M Pc ar riè re 2 .6 81 PU M P re pr es en ts a s te p fo rw ar d in m y ca re er 0. 81 7 Co nt rib ut io n fro m P UM P to th e ca re er PU M Pc ar rie re 3 .6 68 PU M P is an a dd ed v al ue o n m y CV PU M Pc ar riè re 1 .6 56 PU M P is a st ep fo rw ar d in m y ca re er Pe rs on al po sit ive 3 .5 91 If I d o no t u se P UM P, m y ch an ce s on p ro m ot io n wi ll b e sm al le r PU M Pv er an tw 2 .5 08 W ith in th e or ga ni za tio n I a m m or e qu ick ly ap pr oa ch ed to ta ke u p ne w re sp on sib ilit ie s Pe er su pp or t3 .8 71 M y co lle ag ue s we re in te re st ed in w ha t I w ou ld b e ab le to d o wi th P UM P on th e jo b 0. 86 4 Su pp or t f ro m c ol le ag ue s Pe er su pp or t2 .8 47 M y co lle ag ue s ex pe ct m e to u se P UM P in m y jo b Pe er su pp or t4 .8 33 M y co lle ag ue s en co ur ag e m e to u se P UM P in m y wo rk m ax im al ly Pe er su pp or t1 .7 35 M y co lle ag ue s su pp or te d m y pa rti cip at io n in P UM P Pe rs on al ne ga tiv e2 -.7 38 In m y or ga ni za tio n I w as a sk ed fo r e xp la na tio n if I d id n’ t w an t t o co nt rib ut e to p ro je ct s wh er e m y ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e co ul d be u se d 0. 82 4 Di ss at isf ac tio n in c as e of n on -u se o f a cq ui re d kn ow le dg e Pe rs on al ne ga tiv e3 -.7 00 In m y or ga ni za tio n it wa s no t a cc ep te d if ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e wo ul d re m ai n un us ed Pe rs on al ne ga tiv e1 -.5 67 It wo ul d no t h av e be en a pp re cia te d if I w ou ld n ot u se P UM P on th e jo b Pe rs on al ne ga tiv e4 -.5 17 If I w ou ld n ot u se P UM P in th e or ga ni za tio n, I wo ul d re ce ive n eg at ive c om m en ts Fe ed ba ck 1 .7 02 O n th e jo b, I ha d re gu la rly c on ve rs at io ns a bo ut h ow to im pr ov e m y pe rs on al p er fo rm an ce 0. 80 0 Fe ed ba ck o n in di vid ua l pe rfo rm an ce M an ag er su pp or t6 .5 22 M y su pe rv iso r m ad e cle ar w ha t h e ex pe ct ed fr om m e af te r P UM P Fe ed ba ck 2 .4 79 O n th e jo b I r eg ul ar ly re ce ive d ad vic e ab ou t h ow I co ul d im pr ov e m y pe rs on al p er fo rm an ce Fe ed ba ck 3 .4 09 Af te r P UM P I r ec ei ve d fe ed ba ck a bo ut h ow w el l I u se d m y tra in in g Pe rfo rm an ce 4 .3 27 W he n I d id s om et hi ng g oo d on th e jo b, I qu ick ly re ce ive d po sit ive re ac tio ns Pe rs on al ca pa cit y3 .7 82 I d on ’t ha ve ti m e to re fl e ct a bo ut m y wa y of w or kin g, n ei th er to a dj us t t hi s wa y of w or kin g. 0. 44 9 Pe rs on al p os sib ilit ie s to u se PU M P Pe rs on al ca pa cit y1 .5 64 I w as to b us y to th in k ab ou t h ow I co ul d ap pl y PU M P in m y jo b Ef fo rt1 .5 69 I b el ie ve th at e du ca tio na l p ro gr am s ge ne ra lly le ad to p er so na l p er fo rm an ce im pr ov em en t 0. 10 4 C on te nt ? Ti m e1 .5 32 Th e ut ilit y of P UM P is on ly no tic ea bl e a fe w ye ar s af te r t he p ro gr am Ef fo rt3 -.7 26 Th os e wh o try to le ar n, w ill ev en tu al ly pe rfo rm b et te r 0. 55 3 Be lie f i n th e ut ilit y of ed uc at io na l p ro gr am s Ef fo rt2 -.6 21 Th e m or e so m eo ne a pp lie s hi s ac qu ire d kn ow le dg e, th e be tte r h e do es h is jo b O rg an ia tie in itia tie f3 .6 17 S in ce P UM P I t ry to s en sib iliz e m y co lle ag ue s fo r c er ta in c ha ng e in itia tiv es 0. 40 9 Th e sp ac e on e ha s in th e or ga ni za tio n to ta ke in itia tiv es O rg an ia tie in itia tie f2 .4 33 S in ce P UM P I r eg ul ar ly ta ke in itia tiv es in c er ta in p ro je ct s M an ag er sa nc tio ns 3 .3 84 M y su pe rv iso r h op ed th at I wo ul d ta ke u p m y ol d ta sk s as s oo n as p os sib le a fte r P UM P Ve ra nt wt ra ns fe r2 -.7 49 If I w an t t o us e PU M P in th e or ga ni za tio n, I ne ed to ta ke u p re sp on sib ilit y m ys el f 0. 29 7 Is ol at io n fro m th e in di vid ua l in c ha ng e pr oc es se s Re sis ta nc e1 .5 53 O n th e jo b th er e is a lo t o f r es ist an ce to wa rd s ch an ge 61 The diff erent factors can be seen in the table above. Important is the following: fi rst, ‘the program’s impact on the daily job’. This factor can be considered as transfer and is the most important dependent variable; second, another nature of transfer was explored: PUMP as a refl ection framework, questioning whether new theoretical in- sights might, implicitly, infl uence the individual’s work; third, the possibilities to use PUMP. Basically, it refers to the available amount of time to apply PUMP. Remark that the reliability is rather low (0.449). However, given the theoretical importance, this factor has been taken into account. Fourth, factor 16 was theoretically diffi cult to interpret, with a low alpha-value, and was therefore retrieved from further analysis. The same goes for the last factor. The table below presents the inter-factor correlations. Discriminant validity was tested, to see if the diff erent factors are measuring diff erent aspects (Hatcher, 1994). The interval was calculated for the highest signifi cant correlation (r = 0.627): if the validity is demonstrated for that correlation, the other correlations are also valid. The next formula is used: The interval (reliability: 99%), ranges from 0.36 to 0.74: discriminant validity is confi rmed. Regression analysis. Regression analyses were conducted to defi ne relations be- tween dependent and independent variables (Miller et al., 2002; Kerr, Hall and Ko- zub, 2002). Three dependent variables were initially identifi ed: the extent to which the graduates use their knowledge in their daily work (i.e. transfer), the extent to which they use it as a refl ection framework (i.e. another possible form of transfer), and the added value of the program to their career. The latt er was also considered as independent variable. A fourth was added afterwards: self-effi cacy, given its im- portance in past research. Two diff erent regression procedures were used: a forward stepwise procedure and a hierarchical regression analysis, to see what the relative importance of each variable in the model is (Miller et al. 2002; Field, 2006; Cohen and Cohen, 1983). First, transfer as dependent variable was investigated. The model is provided in Table 4. The R²-value is relatively high (53.8%). According to these results, in combination with the extra statistics provided in Table 5, it is clear that there will be more transfer, if (1) the program bett er fi ts the work situation, (2) one believes that PUMP will lead to a career growth, (3) one considers PUMP as a refl ection framework (4) one has the feeling to be supported by colleague graduates, (5) one has more self-confi dence, (6) one comes from an older PUMP-generation, (7) one is older, (8) one believes more in the utility of educational programs. Important in table 6 are the collinearity statistics. The ‘Tolerance’-index indicates how strong the variables are correlated to each other: no collinearity problem occurs. 62 Ta bl e 3: C or re la tio n m at rix Opportunities received Transfer Self-effi cacy Colleague graduates support Transfer quality PUMP Attitude towards performance Preparedness PUMP as Refl ection framework Necessity PUMP Supervisor support Added value to career Colleague support Disapprove non-use Feedback Time for transfer Belief in use programs Room for initiatives O pp or tu ni tie s re ce ive d 1 Tr an sf er .3 25 (** ) 1 Se lf- ef fi c ac y .0 68 .2 98 (** ) 1 Co lle ag ue g ra du at es s up po rt .0 64 .3 28 (** ) .1 07 1 Tr an sf er q ua lity P UM P .2 10 (** ) .5 12 (** ) .2 37 (** ) .2 80 (** ) 1 At tit ud e to wa rd s pe rfo rm an ce .5 70 (** ) .1 18 -.0 40 .0 62 .0 96 1 Pr ep ar ed ne ss .1 16 .3 43 (** ) .2 43 (** ) .0 77 .3 81 (** ) .0 58 1 PU M P as R efl e ct io n fra m ew or k .1 24 .5 01 (** ) .1 93 (** ) .1 99 (** ) .3 53 (** ) .0 13 .2 10 (** ) 1 Ne ce ss ity P UM P .1 35 .4 62 (** ) .1 63 (*) .2 19 (** ) .3 54 (** ) -.0 35 .2 62 (** ) .4 33 (** ) 1 Su pe rv iso r s up po rt .6 21 (** ) .2 35 (** ) .0 75 .0 85 .1 83 (*) .6 90 (** ) .1 45 .0 71 .0 40 1 Ad de d va lu e to c ar ee r .4 46 (** ) .5 60 (** ) .1 32 .1 48 (*) .2 89 (** ) .2 80 (** ) .1 83 (*) .3 47 (** ) .3 58 (** ) .3 98 (** ) 1 Co lle ag ue s up po rt .4 33 (** ) .2 09 (** ) .0 17 .1 08 .2 67 (** ) .4 26 (** ) .1 38 .0 85 .2 12 (** ) .4 99 (** ) .3 74 (** ) 1 Di sa pp ro ve n on -u se .5 92 (** ) .2 96 (** ) .0 33 .2 27 (** ) .1 57 (*) .5 81 (** ) .2 17 (** ) .1 22 .1 17 .5 82 (** ) .3 44 (** ) .3 90 (** ) 1 Fe ed ba ck .5 58 (** ) .2 54 (** ) .0 32 .1 77 (*) .1 98 (** ) .6 16 (** ) .0 75 .0 86 .0 39 .6 76 (** ) .3 82 (** ) .4 54 (** ) .5 20 (** ) 1 Ti m e to tr an sf er -.1 18 -.2 27 (** ) -.2 58 (** ) -.0 79 -.2 44 (** ) -.0 80 -.2 15 (** ) -.0 99 -.1 76 (*) -.1 78 (*) -.1 27 -.1 36 -.1 08 -.0 87 1 Be lie f i n us e pr og ra m s .1 44 .3 73 (** ) .1 86 (*) .1 40 .2 43 (** ) .0 11 .2 15 (** ) .3 44 (** ) .1 84 (*) .0 83 .2 82 (** ) .0 98 .2 03 (** ) .1 71 (*) -.0 32 1 Sp ac e fo r i ni tia tiv es .3 59 (** ) .6 27 (** ) .1 04 .1 39 .3 77 (** ) .2 67 (** ) .2 31 (** ) .3 50 (** ) .3 26 (** ) .3 25 (** ) .5 25 (** ) .2 17 (** ) .2 89 (** ) .3 16 (** ) -.1 33 .2 36 (** ) 1 ** C or re la tio n is sig ni fi c an t a t t he 0 .0 1 le ve l ( 2- ta ile d) . * C or re la tio n is sig ni fi c an t a t t he 0 .0 5 le ve l ( 2- ta ile d) . 63 Table 4: Regression model dependent variable: transfer R R² Adjusted R² Std. Errorof the Estimate Change Statistics R² Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F change .747 .558 .538 .48464 .009 3.620 1 179 .059 Predictors: (Constant), Program, Career, Refl ectionF, Colleague graduates, Self-effi cacy, PUMP genera- tion, Year of birth, Belief_UtilityProgram Table 5: Coeffi cients regression model Standardized Coeffi cients t Sig. 95% Confi dence Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics β Lower Bound Upper Bound Zero- order Partial Part Tolerance (Constant) 3.447 .001 52.980 194.847 PROGRAM .251 4.454 .000 .148 .382 .504 .316 .221 .775 CAREER .385 6.832 .000 .232 .421 .545 .455 .339 .776 REFLECTIONF .177 3.088 .002 .072 .329 .468 .225 .153 .748 COLLEAGUE GRADUATES .131 2.499 .013 .022 .186 .324 .184 .124 .894 SELF-EFFICACY .102 1.934 .055 -.002 .211 .294 .143 .096 .887 PUMP generation -.147 -2.847 .005 -.087 -.016 -.101 -.208 -.141 .929 Year of birth -.114 -2.173 .031 -.020 -.001 -.110 -.160 -.108 .891 BELIEF_ UTILITYPROGRAMME .104 1.903 .059 -.004 .211 .372 .141 .095 .833 a Dependent Variable: TRANSFER Second, ‘PUMP as an added value to the career’ was used as dependent variable. The results (Table 6) demonstrate that it is determined by the opportunities received in the organization, transfer, support from colleagues and age. This model explains 41.6% of the variance. Again, collinearity is not a problem. Table 6: Regression model dependent variable: added value to the career R R² Adjusted R² Std. Errorof the Estimate Change Statistics R² Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F change .655 .428 .416 .64268 .029 9.281 1 183 .003 Predictors: (Constant), Opportunities, TRANSFER, PEERS, Year of birth (e) Dependent Variable: CAREER Table 7: Coeffi cients regression model Unstandardized Coeffi cients Standardized Coeffi cients t Sig. 95% Confi dence Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Zero- order Partial Part Tolerance VIF (Constant) -38.154 12.641 -3.018 .003 -63.095 -13.213 Opportunities .152 .052 .188 2.909 .004 .049 .256 .433 .210 .163 .749 1.335 TRANSFER .558 .071 .473 7.858 .000 .418 .698 .545 .502 .439 .861 1.162 PEERS .147 .061 .152 2.421 .016 .027 .267 .366 .176 .135 .788 1.269 Year of birth .020 .006 .178 3.046 .003 .007 .032 .188 .220 .170 .916 1.092 a Dependent Variable: CAREER 64 Third, self-effi cacy was used as dependent variable, given its importance in pre- vious research. Three independent variables are identifi ed: (1) preparedness, (2) the PUMP-generation and (3) the quality of the program. This model explains almost 10% of the variance. Table 8: Model regression analysis self-effi cacy R R² Adjusted R² Std. Errorof the Estimate Change Statistics R² Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F change .335 .112 .098 .66090 .026 5.370 1 184 .022 Predictors: (Constant), Preparedness, PUMP generation, Program Table 9: Coeffi cients of the regression model Unstandardized Coeffi cients Standardized Coeffi cients t Sig. 95% Confi dence Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Zero- order Partial Part Tolerance VIF (Constant) 122.524 48.029 2.551 .012 27.766 217.281 Preparedness .186 .070 .199 2.637 .009 .047 .325 .242 .191 .183 .846 1.182 PUMP generation -.060 .024 -.174 -2.488 .014 -.107 -.012 -.134 -.180 -.173 .981 1.019 Program .179 .077 .174 2.317 .022 .027 .331 .235 .168 .161 .856 1.169 a Dependent Variable: Self-effi cacy 3.3. Structural equation model With the results of the regressions, a structural equation model (SEM) was con- structed, to confi rm the regressions simultaneously (Hair et al., 1995). Those analyses are conducted with Lisrel. The output is provided visually. Preparedness Belief_utilityReflection_FColleague_student Year of Birth Peers CAREERTRANSFERSelf-efficacy PUMP generation OpportunitiesTransfer quality programme Chi-square = 27.61, df = 15, P-value = 0.02414, RMSEA = 0.075 0,87 0,58 1,09 0,420,24 0,48 0,41 0,7356,04,81 0,490,37 0,09 0,35 0,02 0,30 0,12 0,10 0,38 0,14 -0,00 0,10 -0,050,16 -0,05 0,220,15 Figure 1: Output SEM Lisrel 65 The equations are all confi rming the diff erent regression analyses. The fi t-indices in Table 10 below confi rm that the model has enough fi t to be used and interpreted like it has been done. Table 10: Indices SEM RMSEA NormedFit Index Non-normed Fit Index Comparative Fit Index Incremental Fit Index Relative Fit Index Goodness of Fit Index 0.075 0.96 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.81 0.97 4. Discussion of the results Individual and program characteristics are determining transfer directly and orga- nizational characteristics are merely absent. Both the descriptive and explanatory re- sults have demonstrated that the transfer climate can be defi ned as neutral. This does not mean that organizational features are unimportant or unnecessary. If they would be present, participants could have a higher transfer level perception. The question is what should be done fi rst to enhance transfer: fortifying factors from which we know they have an impact, or focusing on factors from which we assume they could have an impact, but are absent in the analysis above? Therefore, let’s focus fi rst on the fac- tors that are presented in the model. For the individual it is clear that age, PUMP-gen- eration, self-effi cacy, ‘the belief in the utility of programs’ and ‘the belief that PUMP is a refl ection framework for the future’ are important elements increasing transfer. Of course, age cannot be manipulated, but it is something that can be taken into ac- count in the selection procedure of a program. The same goes for the belief in PUMP’s value for the future and the utility of programs, since those are indicators of a certain att itude towards PUMP in particular and educational programs in general. Therefore, a transfer enhancing mechanism would be the intensifi cation of the selection proce- dure. If the input can be controlled seriously, the output may generate more expected outcomes. The basic idea is that if transfer is taken into account from the beginning, it may probably have a bigger chance to succeed than when emphasis is only put on transfer enhancing mechanisms during the transfer process (Broucker, 2014). When it comes to the eff ect of generation on transfer, it is important to emphasize the time-as- pect, since transfer may take longer than expected: the bigger the time span between participation in a management program and transfer measurement, the more likely it is to measure transfer. For the program, it is clear that the resemblance between learning situation and work situation is crucial. Interesting in this debate however, is the support from colleague students, as shown by the results. From that perspective it is not only necessary to talk about the transfer climate of the organization, but also about the transfer climate of the program: are participants supportive towards each other to transfer and use their acquired knowledge? Are they helping each other with certain problems in their work, thereby crossing organizational boundaries? For the organizational features, no variable has been identifi ed as having a direct impact on transfer. Yet, four factors are more or less connected to organizational features: the belief that the program has an impact on career (direct eff ect), opportunities received 66 (indirect eff ect), preparedness (indirect eff ect) and support from peers or colleagues at work (indirect eff ect). Those are related to organizational dynamics. First, the pre- paredness of an employee to enter the program depends on the communication pro- cess, not only from the program organizers but also from his organization. The orga- nization must clarify why the employee is enrolled and what is expected from him afterwards. This seems obvious, but isn’t. Second, to have an impact on the career, the employee must have an idea of the usefulness of the program for the organization and his job. This is the result of a clear link between the program and the general HRM-processes and is the structural embeddedness of an educational program in an organizational strategy. Third, opportunities received are direct interventions from the supervisor or on demand from the graduate. An opportunity may be a diff erent job content, new tasks or responsibilities. Fourth, support from colleagues at work. It seems obvious that the impact of colleagues is important since they are in direct contact with the participant. Therefore it seems important to involve, in one way or the other, colleagues by informing them about who will follow which educational program and why. This may reduce a possible resistance caused by ignorance and stimulate support. It may also be interesting to defi ne certain responsibilities for the colleagues in the transfer process of the employee. As a result it is necessary to focus on the link between the program and the general HRM-processes, the opportunities provided and the communication towards the participant and the colleagues. 5. Conclusion The purpose of this article was to provide a clear list of some important factors upon which further research could be focused and at the same time providing a small, but relevant group of factors that can be switched relatively easy in transfer stimulat- ing conditions. It is clear that this will not solve completely the lack of transfer, but bearing in mind what the regression analyses have provided, it seems necessary and important to focus on those variables fi rst. For practitioners it is necessary to have a clear idea of what can be done to improve transfer, even if this is not a guarantee. For researchers, it will always be necessary to try to understand the complexity of the real world, and it is only by detailed research that we will come to a simple set of trans- fer stimulating conditions. To combine the two ambitions, i.e. satisfying practitioners and researchers with the results of this article, the table below provides suggestions for concrete actions and for further research. By doing this, this article tries to reduce the amount of variables that may have an impact on transfer and wants to prioritize those variables, without increasing the complexity of the debate. 67 Ta bl e 11 : T ra ns fe r s tim ul at in g fa ct or s Ch ar ac te ris tic s Fa ct or s Su gg es tio ns fo r p ra ct iti on er s Su gg es tio ns fo r f ur th er re se ar ch In di vid ua l ch ar ac te ris tic s Ag e Th e co m m un ica tio n pr oc es s sh ou ld c le ar ly de fi n e wh ich ta rg et g ro up is in th e fo cu s. A ge m ay b e an in di ca to r i n th at p ro ce ss . Tr an sf er re se ar ch s ho ul d m or e be fo cu se d on th e se t o f va lu es a nd b el ie fs a n in di vid ua l h as to wa rd s ed uc at io na l pr og ra m s. H is m ot iva tio n to tr an sf er a cq ui re d kn ow le dg e wi ll pr ob ab ly de pe nd u po n th os e va lu es , wh ich m ak e th em a n im po rta nt p rio rit y. Se lf- ef fi c ac y • Co nt ro llin g vig or ou sly th e se le ct io n pr oc ed ur e: wh at va lu es do th e pa rti cip an ts h av e ab ou t e du ca tio na l p ro gr am s in g en er al a nd th is pr og ra m in p ar tic ul ar ? W ha t d o th ey th in k fro m e du ca tio na l p ro gr am s? H ow d o th ey pe rc ei ve th ei r o wn c ap ac itie s? • Co m m un ica tio n pr oc es s: w ha t is th e go al o f th e pr og ra m ? W ha t wi ll em pl oy ee s kn ow a fte rw ar ds , a nd w ha t w ill th ey b e ab le to d o? D es cr ib in g go al s sh ou ld n ot ju st b e in g en er al te rm s, b ut in d et ai l. Be lie f i n th e ut ilit y of p ro gr am s At tit ud e to wa rd s th e pr og ra m Tr ai ni ng ch ar ac te ris tic s Tr an sf er q ua lity of th e pr og ra m Te ac hi ng m et ho ds a nd p ro gr am c on te nt th at c le ar ly fo cu s on a ct ua l p ro bl em s an d sit ua tio ns in t he w or kp la ce . Th is al so d ep en ds o n th e pr og ra m : do es th e pr og ra m w an t t o en co un te r a re al p ro bl em in th e wo rk p la ce o r a re m or e ge ne ra l c om pe te nc ie s tra in ed ? Tw o im po rta nt p ro gr am c ha ra ct er ist ics c an b e de fi n ed : (1 ) th e re la tio ns hi p wi th c ol le ag ue s tu de nt s. U nt il no w th is as pe ct h as n’ t be en m uc h in t he f oc us o f tra ns fe r re se ar ch . (2 ) ge ne ra l pr og ra m c ha ra ct er ist ics a nd t he lin k be tw ee n le ar ni ng s itu at io n an d wo rk s itu at io n. T hi s as pe ct h as b ee n co nfi rm ed b y pr ev io us re se ar ch . Su pp or t f ro m co lle ag ue s tu de nt s Tr ai ni ng s ho ul d no t b e an is ol at ed a ct ivi ty a nd s ho ul d be c on tin ue d af te rw ar ds (n et wo rk in g) . B y cle ar ly co nt ro llin g th e se le ct io n pr oc ed ur e a gr ou p ca n be se le ct ed th at h as th e sa m e po te nt ia l a nd e xp ec ta tio ns . T hi s is no t n ec es sa ril y a ho m og en ou s gr ou p. W ha t i s im po rta nt is th e un ity o f t he g ro up , a nd th is ca n be s tim ul at ed d ur in g th e tra in in g pe rio d. O rg an iza tio na l ch ar ac te ris tic s Pr ep ar ed ne ss Co m m un ica tio n pr oc es s: p ar tic ip an ts m us t h av e a cle ar id ea o f w ha t c an b e ex pe ct ed fr om th e pr og ra m a nd w ha t i s ex pe ct ed fr om th em a fte r t he p ro gr am . I t wo ul d be in te re st in g to fo cu s th e re se ar ch on or ga ni za tio na l ch ar ac te ris tic s m or e on t he s tru ct ur al em be dd ed ne ss o f th e pr og ra m . Th is em be dd ed ne ss ta ke s fo rm in th re e di ffe re nt w ay s: ( 1) th e jo b co nt en t, wh ich m an ife st s its el f b y pr ov id ed o pp or tu ni tie s, (2 ) t he ca re er p at h, w hi ch is m ad e cle ar b y pl ac in g th e pr og ra m in a c ar ee r p er sp ec tiv e an d in th e or ga ni za tio na l g oa ls, (3 ) t he s oc ia l e m be dd ed ne ss b y in vo lvi ng c ol le ag ue s. Th e pr ep ar ed ne ss of th e in di vid ua l is re la te d to th os e as pe ct s, b ec au se h e m us t be a wa re o f th is em be dd ed ne ss . R es ea rc h sh ou ld fo cu s cle ar ly on th os e as pe ct s. Be lie f i n ad de d va lu e to wa rd s ca re er O rg an iza tio ns m us t cle ar ly de fi n e wh at t he p os itio n of a p ro gr am is w ith in th e ge ne ra l c om pe te nc y m an ag em en t, th e lin k wi th th e jo b re qu ire m en ts , t he or ga ni za tio na l g oa ls an d ca re er p er sp ec tiv es . I n ot he r w or ds : t he o rg an iza tio n m us t c le ar ly de fi n e wh y a ce rta in p ro gr am is n ec es sa ry fo r t he o rg an iza tio n an d us ef ul /in te re st in g fo r t he p ar tic ip an t. O pp or tu ni tie s pr ov id ed Im pu lse s fro m th e or ga ni za tio n: it is c le ar th at if th e pa rti cip an t i s pr ep ar ed to th e pr og ra m a nd h as c er ta in e xp ec ta tio ns a bo ut w ha t w ill ha pp en a fte r th e pr og ra m , t he n ec es sa ry o pp or tu ni tie s ha ve to b e pr ov id ed in o rd er to fu lfi l th os e ex pe ct at io ns . O rg an iza tio ns d o ha ve a r es po ns ib ilit y to wa rd s th e em pl oy ee af te r t he p ro gr am h as ta ke n pl ac e. Pe er s up po rt Co lle ag ue s sh ou ld b e in fo rm ed a bo ut th e pa rti cip at io n in tr ai ni ng p ro gr am s of ot he r e m pl oy ee s. 68 References: 1. Awoniyi, E., Griego, O. and Morgan, G., ‘Person-Environment Fit and Transfer of Training’, 2002, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 25-35. 2. Bates, R. and Khasawneh, S., ‘Organizational Learning Culture, Learning Transfer Cli- mate and Perceived Innovation in Jordanian Organizations’, 2005, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 96-109. 3. Broad, M. and Newstrom, J., Transfer of Training. Action-Packed Strategies to Ensure High Payoff from Training Investments, Massachusett s: Addison-Wesley Publishing Compa- ny, Inc., 1992. 4. Broucker, B., ‘Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management: Transfer In- hibiting and Enhancing Factors in the Belgian Public Sector’, 2010, Journal of Public Aff airs Education, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 231-253 5. Broucker, B., ‘Comment maximaliser le transfert des acquis de formation dans le sec- teur public? L’eff ectivité de la formation managériale dans l’administration fédérale belge’, 2011, Télescope. Revue d’Analyse Comparée en Administration Publique, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 54-79. 6. Broucker, B., ‘Defi ning the Impact of Public Management Programmes for Public Sector Organisations’, 2014, Teaching Public Administration, DOI: 10.1177/0144739414561331. 7. Buelens, M., van den Broeck, H., Vanderheyden, K., Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A., Or- ganisational Behaviour, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education, 2006. 8. Burke, L. and Hutchins, H., ‘Training Transfer: An Integrative Literature Review, 2007, Human Resource Development Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 263-269. 9. Chen, H-C., Cross-Cultural Construct Validation of the Learning Transfer System Inventory in Taiwan, Dissertation, School of Human Resource Education and Workforce Devel- opment, Louisiana State University, 2003. 10. Clarke, N., ‘Job/Work Environment Factors Infl uencing Human Transfer within a Hu- man Service Agency: Some Indicative Support for Baldwin and Ford’s Transfer Cli- mate Construct’, 2002, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 146-162. 11. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P., Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavori- al Sciences, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 1983. 12. Devos, C., Dumay, X., Cassart, B., Bodenghien, A. and Vallaeys, P., Evaluation des fac- teurs susceptibles d’infl uencer le transfert des acquis, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2006. 13. Donovan, P., Hannigan, K. and Deirdre, C., ‘The Learning Transfer System Approach to Estimating the Benefi ts of Training: Empirical Evidence’, 2001, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 25, no. 2/3/4, pp. 221-228. 14. Field, A., Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, London: Sage Publications, 2006. 15. Ford, J., Quinoñes, M., Sego, D. and Sorra, J., ‘Factors Aff ecting the Opportunity to Per- form Trained Tasks on the Job’, 1992, Personnel Psychology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 511-527. 16. Foxon, M., ‘A Process Approach to the Transfer of Training. Using Action Planning to Facilitate the Transfer of Training’, 1994, Australian Journal of Educational Technology vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-18. 17. Gilpin-Jackson, Y. and Bushe, G., Leadership Development Training Transfer: A Case Study of Post-Training Determinants, 2007, Journal of Management Development, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 980-1004. 69 18. Gumuseli, A. and Ergin, B., ‘The Manager’s Role in Enhancing the Transfer of Train- ing: A Turkish Case Study’, 2002, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 80-97. 19. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W., Multivariate Data Analysis with Read- ings, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995. 20. Hatcher, L., A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS System for Factor Analysis and Struc- tural Equation Modeling, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1994. 21. Ho, R., Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall, 2006. 22. Holton E., ‘The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model’, 1996, Human Resource Develop- ment Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5-21. 23. Holton, E. and Bates, R., Appendix A. Learning Transfer System Inventory, Report, 1998. 24. Holton E., Chen, H-C. and Naquin, S., ‘An Examination of Learning Transfer System Characteristics across Organizational Sett ings’, 2003, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 459-482. 25. Holton, E, Bates, R. and Ruona, W., ‘Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory’, 2002, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 333-360. 26. Kerr, A., Hall, H. and Kozub, S., Doing Statistics with SPSS, London: Sage, 2002. 27. Konthoghiorghes, C., ‘Reconceptualizing the Learning Transfer Conceptual Frame- work: Empirical Validation of a New Systemic Model’, 2004, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 210-221. 28. Lim, D. and Johnson, S., ‘Trainee Perceptions of Factors that Infl uence Learning Trans- fer’, 2002, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 36-48. 29. Miller, R., Acton, C., Fullerton, D. and Maltby, J., SPSS for Social Scientists, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 30. Olivero, G., Bane, K. and Kopelman, R., ‘Executive Coaching as a Transfer of Training Tool: Eff ects on Productivity in a Public Agency’, 1997, Public Personnel Management vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 461-469. 31. Paek, J. and Hawley, J., A Study of Training Program Characteristics and Training Program Eff ectiveness among Organizations Receiving Training Services from External Training Pro- viders, 2006, Paper presented at the International Research Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Columbus, Ohio, February 2006. 32. Pidd, K., ‘Organisational Barriers to Training Transfer: The Role of Workplace Social Controls and Normative Behaviour in Workforce Development’ in Catching Clouds: Exploring Diversity in Workforce Development for the Alcohol and other Drug Field’, Nation- al Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Adelaide, 2002, pp. 135-144. 33. Pidd, K., ‘The Impact of Workplace Support and Identity on Training Transfer: A Case Study of Drug and Alcohol Safety Training in Australia’, 2004, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 274-288. 34. Quiñones, M., ‘Pretraining Context Eff ects: Training Assignment as Feedback’, 1995, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 226-238. 35. Quiñones, M. and Holladay, C., ‘Practice Variability and Transfer of Training: The Role of Self-Effi cacy Generality’, 2003, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 1094-1103. 70 36. Ruona, W., Leimbach, L., Holton, E. and Bates, R., ‘The Relationship between Learner Utility Reactions and Predicted Learning Transfer among Trainees’, 2002, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 218-228. 37. Thayer, P. and Teachout, M.A., Climate for Transfer Model, Texas: Brooks Air Force Base, Report, 1995. 38. Van de Kerckhove, S., Transfer van het Public Management Programme binnen de FOD Justitie. Onderzoek naar bevorderende en belemmerende factoren m.b.t. transfer van verworven kennis en competenties, K.U.Leuven: Leuven, 2007, [unpublished thesis]. 39. van der Klink, M., Gielen, E. and Nauta, C., ‘Supervisory Support as a Major Condi- tion to Enhance Transfer, 2001, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 52-63. 40. Wright, B.E. and Pandey, S.K., ‘Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure Matt er?’, 2010, Public Administration Research & Theory, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 75-89. 41. Yamnill, S. and McLean, G., ‘Theories Supporting Transfer of Training’, 2001, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 195-208.