ijtd_392 39..53

The relationship between jobdissatisfaction and training transfer

Susanne Jodlbauer, Eva Selenko, Bernad Batinicand Barbara Stiglbauer

The high rates of training transfer failure that prevail stillpuzzle practitioners as well as researchers. The central aim ofthe present study is to analyze the relatively under-researchedrole of job dissatisfaction in the training transfer process. Spe-cifically, we expect that job dissatisfaction would have a nega-tive effect on transfer but that this effect would be buffered bythe expectation of positive transfer consequences and motiva-tion to transfer. To test these hypotheses, 220 participants indifferent training programs completed an online questionnaire1 year after training. The results support our assumptions. Theyreveal that job dissatisfaction has a detrimental effect ontraining transfer, but that motivation to transfer and the expec-tation of positive transfer consequences have a buffering effect.The more motivated a person is towards transfer, the less nega-tive is the effect of job dissatisfaction on actual transfer, butonly if a person expects positive outcomes from transfer, suchas acknowledgment or rewards. The findings are discussed inrelation to existing training transfer models, as well as modelsof job (dis)satisfaction.

According to the American Society for Training and Development (2008), US compa-nies spent about $1103 per employee and $134.39 billion in total in 2007 to enhancetheir employees’ skills and competencies. However, approximately 40 percent of par-ticipants of job-related training programs fail to transfer newly acquired knowledgeand skills to the job context immediately after training, and altogether only 50 percentof training investments result in organizational or individual improvements (Saks,2002). Considering, on the one hand, the extent of training investments made by

❒ Susanne Jodlbauer, Research Associate, Doctoral Student, Department of Education and Psychology,Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Email: susanne.jodlbauer@jku.at. Eva Selenko, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Department of Education and Psychology, Johannes Kepler University ofLinz,Austria. Email: eva.selenko@jku.at. Bernad Batinic, Professor, Work, Organizational and Media Psy-chology, Department of Education and Psychology, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Email:bernad.batinic@jku.at. Barbara Stiglbauer, Research Associate, Doctoral Student, Department of Educa-tion and Psychology, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Email: barbara.stiglbauer@jku.at.

International Journal of Training and Development 16:1ISSN 1360-3736doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00392.x

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 39

companies each year and, on the other, the high rates of transfer failure, there is a needfor more knowledge on the factors affecting the transfer process. Against this back-ground, the underlying question that prompts this paper is: why do learning invest-ments still yield deficient results and what are the reasons for the failure to transfertraining outcomes. The specific purpose of the study is to examine the role of jobdissatisfaction as a potential direct and moderating factor in the process of trainingtransfer, and to contribute to a more complete picture of the conditions underlying thefailure to transfer the benefits of training to the actual work process thereby.

Job (dis)satisfaction is a prominent factor in industrial and organizational psychologyresearch because of its influence on the work context (Kinicki et al., 2002; Locke, 1976).Research on both its antecedents and its consequences goes back to the mid-20thcentury (e.g. Aiken & Hage, 1966; Blauner, 1964; Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Brayfield& Rothe, 1951; Herzberg et al., 1957; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Kanungo, 1979;Seeman, 1959). Whereas job satisfaction has been related to a variety of beneficialoutcome variables such as productivity (Harter et al., 2002), job motivation (Kinickiet al., 2002) or increased organizational citizenship behavior (LePine et al., 2002; Schmit& Alscheid, 1995), job dissatisfaction has been found to have a variety of detrimentaleffects such as enhanced turnover intentions (Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Hom & Kinicki,2001; Kankaanranta et al., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2007; Wong, 1989), absenteeism(Staw, 1984), negative work-related emotions such as anger directed at the supervisor(Fitzgerald et al., 2003), less satisfied clients/patients (McHugh et al., 2011), a reducedworking morale (Schaefer & Moos, 1996) as well as a significant neglect of in-rule jobduties (Turnley & Feldman, 2000). However, the effects of job satisfaction and/or jobdissatisfaction on training transfer remain somewhat unclear. Whereas some positiveeffects of job satisfaction on motivation to transfer have been reported (Egan et al.,2004), so far, research on the impact of job (dis)satisfaction on training transfer remainslimited. Considering the negative effect of job dissatisfaction on the fulfillment ofin-role job duties (Turnley & Feldman, 2000), a similar negative effect on the fulfillmentof extra-role behavior such as the implementation of newly learned knowledge andskills might be expected. According to this reasoning, the willingness to make an extraeffort by adopting the newly gained skills within the workplace should be loweramong dissatisfied employees than among satisfied.

In reality, job dissatisfaction is, to some extent, inevitable as organizations cannotguarantee constant high job satisfaction (Rusbult et al., 1988). Consequently, dissatisfiedemployees are likely to always make up a proportion, possibly a significant proportion,of the training clientele, if they participate at all. The question that therefore arises is notonly one of whether or not job dissatisfaction has a negative effect on training transfer,but whether or not this negative effect can be compensated or even turned into some-thing positive under certain circumstances.

According to Staw (1984), discontentment with the work situation is not alwaysdetrimental; it can also be the spark to alter something. As suggested by Hirschman(1970, 1974), persons in dissatisfying jobs can react in a range of different ways: theymight quit their job (exit), resign themselves to the situation (loyalty) or take action bytrying to change the unsatisfactory situation (voice). In subsequent studies by Rusbultet al. (1982) and by Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983), a further category was added to thetypology of responses to dissatisfaction, defined as neglect and referring to the neglectof duties as a further response to feelings of dissatisfaction. Support for the four-category typology of responses to job dissatisfaction along the two evaluative dimen-sions – constructive/destructive and active/passive – has been provided in a numberof empirical studies (e.g. Farrell, 1983; Lee & Whitford, 2007; Rusbult et al., 1988). As theacquisition and application of new knowledge, skills and behavioral patterns may beseen as an opportunity to change something, we assume, therefore, that job dissatis-faction will be less destructive where a trainee regards the transfer of training as achance to overcome or change his or her unsatisfactory work situation.

Training transfer is defined by Baldwin and Ford (1988, p. 63) as ‘[. . .] learnedbehavior [that] is generalized to the job context and maintained over a period of timeon the job’ and has been a topic of great interest since the 1950s (e.g. Baldwin & Ford,

40 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

1988; Burke & Hutchins, 2009; Mosel, 1957; Taylor, 1952). Despite the significantnumber of studies (>170; for an overview, see Burke & Hutchins, 2009), there is still noagreement on the number or nature of factors influencing transfer nor of the way inwhich they interact with each other, although Grossman and Salas (2011) haveattempted to highlight the most important factors. Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) trainingtransfer model identifies three categories of influencing factor: trainee characteristics,training design characteristics and characteristics of the work environment (e.g.Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Holton, 2005; Holton et al., 2000). All of these three categoriesplay an important role in training transfer by moderating, mediating or directly pre-dicting transfer success. However, one factor that has been identified as a particularlyimportant predictor of training transfer and which has received a large amountof attention (cf. Burke & Hutchins, 2009) is the trainee characteristic ‘motivation totransfer’ (for a recent review, see Gegenfurtner et al., 2009).

The relationship between the motivation of an individual and his/her work-relatedbehavior has attracted a great deal of attention since the early 20th century (e.g.Herzberg et al., 1959; Maslow, 1943; Münsterberg, 1913). Motivation to transfer, whichhas been found to be especially important in the post-training phase (Holton et al., 2000;Noe, 1986), is a specific aspect of motivation related to the field of training, and isdefined as ‘[. . .] trainees’ desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in thetraining program on the job’ (Noe, 1986, p. 743). In a study by Ford (1997), for instance,self-reports of motivation to use trained knowledge and skills emerged as a crucialfactor in predicting training transfer. Axtell et al. (1997) described motivation to transferas the key variable in determining the transfer of interpersonal skills after 1 month, andHolton et al. (2000) ultimately defined motivation to transfer as a central variable in theirlearning transfer model affecting post-training individual performance. Given thesignificance of motivation to transfer within the transfer process, we expect not only adirect effect, but also a moderating effect of motivation to transfer on the relationshipbetween job dissatisfaction and actual training transfer. Dissatisfied employees with ahigh motivation to transfer may regard the adoption of new techniques, skills andattitudes as an effective solution to put an end to their unfortunate work situation,wherefore a high motivation to transfer should buffer the negative effect of job dissat-isfaction on training transfer. In other words, even if employees are dissatisfied withtheir job, they may still make the effort to transfer the newly gained knowledge to theworkplace, if their motivation to transfer is sufficiently high. This hypothesized mod-eration effect is expected to buffer the negative effect of job dissatisfaction on trainingtransfer and mitigate the loss of newly gained knowledge and behavioral patterns.

According to Vroom’s expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), a high motivation to trans-fer alone may not be enough to encourage dissatisfied employees to transfer theirtraining to the workplace. Vroom claims that people estimate the likelihood that aparticular act will precede a particular outcome and decide then on the basis of thatresult. Another important element affecting an individual’s behavior is, therefore, theexpectation of positive consequences following the behavior, and the valence of theseconsequences for the individual. There are indications that this mechanism might alsobe salient in the training transfer process (Colquitt et al., 2000; Holton, 1996; Porter &Lawler, 1968). The more trainees believe that training transfer will lead to certainpositive outcomes and the higher they value these outcomes, the more likely it is thatthey will use the training in work. Positively valued outcomes of training transfer couldbe, for instance, increased responsibility, acknowledgment or promotion (Holton et al.,2000; Kauffeld et al., 2008). There are several studies showing that anticipation that useof the newly acquired skills and abilities will be acknowledged by the organizationplays a major role in transfer process (e.g. Baldwin et al., 1991; Holton et al., 2007, 2000).The relevance of an appreciative transfer climate was also pointed out by Clarke (2002),who demonstrated that employees who expected to benefit from training in terms ofimproved job or career prospects showed more transfer of the learned skills than thosewho did not. According to him, clear signals sent by supervisors regarding the role andvalue of training motivate employees to participate in training programs in the firstplace and to ultimately use the newly learned skills in the workplace. The anticipation

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 41© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

of positive outcomes – in the form of recognition, rewards, enhanced responsibility oreven promotion – acts thereby as a significant amplifier of training transfer (Tracey &Tews, 2005).

All of the above studies illustrate the significance of the anticipation of positiveconsequences in the transfer process; however, whether or not the anticipation ofappreciation and rewards can buffer the presumed negative effect of job dissatisfactionon training transfer remains unknown. If Vroom’s expectancy theory is consideredalong with the assumption that a high motivation to transfer buffers the negative effectof job dissatisfaction on training transfer, then this suggests that any expectation theindividual holds of positive transfer consequences should be taken into account along-side motivation to transfer in attempting to identify a mechanism by which to minimizethe negative effect of job dissatisfaction on training transfer.

A positive effect of an acknowledging organizational environment on turning jobdissatisfaction into something positive could already be shown by Zhou and George(2001) in terms of inter-organizational creativity. In line with findings from the jobdissatisfaction literature (Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983; Rusbult et al.,1988; Staw, 1984), their study revealed that dissatisfied employees responded actively totheir dissatisfaction by showing increased creativity (cf. ‘voice’, Hirschman, 1970), ifthey knew that their effort was acknowledged. Considering a similar buffering effect ofthe anticipation of acknowledgment on the relationship between job dissatisfaction andtraining transfer, job dissatisfaction may be less detrimental if trainees know that theirefforts in attending training and adapting the learning to the work context are appre-ciated by the organization.

In order for employees to see training transfer as an effective way out of theirdissatisfying work situation and to turn their motivation to transfer into actual transferbehavior, we assume that there has to be some reassurance that training transfer isacknowledged on behalf of the company by, for example, a manager, supervisor orco-workers. The higher the probability that successful transfer will lead to positiveconsequences and the higher the value of these anticipated consequences, the morelikely it is that dissatisfied employees with a high motivation to transfer will actually tryto apply the newly acquired skills and competencies in their daily work.

Thus, on the basis of Vroom’s expectancy theory and the findings of Zhou andGeorge, we suggest that in addition to a high motivation to transfer, an acknowl-edging climate is necessary to buffer the negative effect of job dissatisfaction ontransfer. Specifically, we expect the buffering effect of motivation to transfer to befacilitated by the expectation of positive transfer consequences. This means that themoderation effect of motivation to transfer on the relationship between job dissatis-faction and actual transfer may vary depending on the strength of the positive con-sequence anticipation subsequent to training transfer. If acknowledgment and/orrewards, such as increased responsibility, financial rewards or promotion, is/areanticipated as a consequence of transfer, a high motivation to transfer should bufferthe negative effect of job dissatisfaction on actual transfer; if no positive consequencesare expected by the employees, no buffering effect of motivation to transfer shouldappear.

To sum up, our hypotheses are as follows: We propose that trainees who are dissat-isfied with their job transfer fewer skills and less knowledge to the job than traineeswho are satisfied with their job (Hypothesis 1). A high motivation to transfer, on theother hand, should be positively related with an increase in the application of trainedskills and knowledge on the job (Hypothesis 2).

Furthermore, we propose that the negative relationship between job dissatisfactionand actual implementation is moderated and thereby buffered by a high motivation totransfer. In detail, it is assumed that trainees who are dissatisfied at work but highlymotivated to apply the newly gained knowledge and skills transfer more than dissat-isfied trainees without such a high motivation to transfer (Hypothesis 3).

Additionally, we postulate that the moderating effect of motivation to transfer on therelationship between job dissatisfaction and actual transfer only appears if there arepositive outcome expectations. More precisely, only if positive outcomes are expected,

42 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

motivation to transfer should moderate the relationship between job dissatisfaction andactual transfer (Hypothesis 4). For an illustration of the hypotheses, see Figure 1.

MethodParticipants

Data collection was carried out in cooperation with a national institute for furthereducation belonging to the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber. Participants of avariety of courses received an email invitation to complete an online questionnaireabout 1 year after training (Mdn = 365, IQR = 182) and filled it in at home. Altogether,671 trainees took part in the study; given that 83 participants were unemployed atthe moment of the survey and 209 did not complete the whole survey, 292 participantshad to be excluded from analyses. Furthermore, because of the great variation inthe number of suggestions proposed (ranging from 0 to 200, M = 6.13, standarddeviation [SD] = 16.22, Mdn = 2.00) and actually implemented at the workplace (min = 0,max = 100, M = 3.68, SD = 10.36, Mdn = 1.00), the upper 10 percent of participants(n = 81) were excluded from further analyses in order to reduce distortion of results.

The courses attended by the participants covered a variety of topics ranging fromhealth issues and human resource management, to economics and language courses.Analyses were conducted to control for transfer differences based on the content oftraining attended by participants. With the exception of participants of languagecourses, participants did not differ in the degree of actual transfer (F(6, 382) = 1.25,p > 0.05). Language course participants reported a smaller motivation to transfer as wellas a lower implementation rate. Given that in comparison to other courses, the reasonfor attending a language course is more often personal than work related, transfer tothe job may not always be an issue. Hence, participants of language courses (n = 78)were excluded from further analysis.

Thus, after data cleansing, the sample for this study consisted of 220 adults (47percent women) ranging from 18 to 59 years old (M = 33.14, SD = 9.39). Vocationalfields occupied by the participants were quite mixed, ranging from the health (4percent) and human resource sector (16 percent), to the technical field (29 percent), andeconomics (32 percent); the remaining 19 percent did not indicate their occupation. 32.9percent of participants reported being in a managerial position. Eighty percent of thetraining participants decided to take part in training themselves, 17 percent attended itat the manager’s instigation, and 3 percent did not indicate whose decision it was. For46 percent of the participants, training expenses were covered by their respectiveorganization, 50 percent had to pay for the training themselves, 4 percent did notindicate who covered their expenses. Twelve percent of the participants attended thetraining during their regular working hours, 80 percent outside their normal workinghours; the remaining 8 percent did not answer this question.

Hyp. 4

Hyp. 3

Job Dissatisfaction Implementation Rate

Motivation to Transfer

Expectation of Positive Transfer Consequences

Hyp. 1 (-)

Hyp. 2 (+)

Figure 1: Visualization of the hypotheses.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 43© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Measures

Implementation rateTo measure the actual number of implementations brought about as a consequence oftraining, participants were asked to indicate (1) the total number of suggestions madeback at the workplace and (2) how many of these were actually implemented. Bothitems were adapted from Kauffeld et al.’s (2009) Measurement-Success-Inventory. Afterthe earlier mentioned exclusion of participants who deviated significantly from theaverage number of indicated suggestions, trainees’ average indication of proposedsuggestions was 1.81 (SD = 3.23, Mdn = 1.00), and the average of implemented sugges-tions 1.01 (SD = 1.45, Mdn = 0.00). The degree of transfer was defined in the presentstudy by the number of implemented suggestions per suggestions proposed at theworkplace, ranging from 0 (no implementation per suggestion) to 1 (full implementation ofall suggestions), M = 0.55, SD = 0.37, Mdn = 0.60.

Job dissatisfaction measureJob dissatisfaction was measured by Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) Index of Job Satisfac-tion (IJS), which can be applied for measuring both job satisfaction and job dissatisfac-tion. In the present study, Judge et al.’s (1998) shortened version was used, includingfive items (Cronbach’s a = 0.88). Whereas a high total score indicates job satisfaction, alow total score represents job dissatisfaction (cf. Aschenbrener et al., 2007; Brayfield &Rothe, 1951). For the purpose of our analysis, items were recoded, so that high valuesindicated job dissatisfaction and low values indicated job satisfaction. The shortened IJSincludes items such as, ‘Most days I am enthusiastic about my work’ (reverse scored),or ‘Each day of work seems like it will never end’, and answers were given on a 7-pointLikert scale (I totally agree to I totally disagree).

Motivation to transferMotivation to transfer was assessed by a subscale of the German version (Kauffeld et al.,2008) of the Learning-Transfer-System-Inventory (LTSI) (Holton et al., 2000). Examplesof the four-item scale (Cronbach’s a = 0.86) are ‘I get excited when I think about tryingto use my new learning on my job’, or ‘I’m motivated to apply the new skills I gainedin the training on my job’. Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (I totallyagree to I totally disagree).

Expected positive transfer consequencesTo assess a trainee’s expectation of positive personal consequences subsequently totransfer, Kauffeld et al.’s (2008) translated version of Holton et al.’s (2000) LTSI three-item subscale personal outcomes positive (Cronbach’s a = 0.79) was used. Sample itemsare: ‘Employees in this organization receive various perks when they utilize newlylearned skills on the job’ or ‘If I use this training I am more likely to be rewarded’.Responses were again scored on a 5-point Likert scale (I totally agree to I totally disagree).

ResultsThe central interest of this study was to establish whether or not the negative effect ofjob dissatisfaction on actual transfer is moderated and thereby compensated by moti-vation to transfer, and furthermore, whether or not this moderation effect is stable orinhibited under certain conditions. In detail, we tested whether or not the bufferingeffect of motivation to transfer on the relationship between job dissatisfaction and theimplementation rate varies depending on the condition of whether or not positiveconsequences subsequent to transfer can be expected.

An inspection of the correlation coefficients (see Table 1) showed that none of thecontrol variables (age, gender, management function, time since training, traininginvestment, training instigation, time of training attendance or training duration) wascorrelated with implementation rate. Consequently, all control variables were excludedfrom further analysis.

44 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Tab

le1:

Inte

rcor

rela

tion

sbe

twee

nim

plem

enta

tion

rate

,mot

ivat

ion

totr

ansf

er,j

obdi

ssat

isfa

ctio

n,ex

pect

edpo

siti

veco

nseq

uenc

esan

dco

ntro

lvar

iabl

es

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(1)

Sex

(2)A

ge-0

.05

(3)

Man

agem

ent

func

tion

0.21

**0.

37**

(4)

Tim

esi

nce

trai

ning

0.10

0.12

0.05

(5)

Dur

atio

nof

trai

ning

0.35

**-0

.04

0.14

0.11

(6)

Trai

ning

inst

igat

ion

0.11

-0.0

1-0

.05

0.01

0.02

0.00

(7)

Trai

ning

inve

stm

ents

0.10

-0.1

3-0

.01

0.07

0.05

0.31

***

(8)

Tim

eof

Tr.a

tten

danc

e-0

.02

-0.0

3-0

.03

0.11

-0.0

6-0

.03

0.11

(9)

Impl

emen

tati

onra

te-0

.04

0.05

0.05

-0.0

2-0

.02

0.01

-0.0

8-0

.02

(10)

Mot

ivat

ion

totr

ansf

er-0

.10

-0.0

4-0

.10

-0.1

0-0

.22

-0.0

3-0

.15

-0.0

10.

18*

(11)

Job

dis

sati

sfac

tion

-0.0

00.

010.

120.

070.

07-0

.05

0.01

0.13

-0.2

9**

-0.2

3**

(12)

Pos.

cons

eque

nce

exp.

-0.0

8-0

.04

0.10

-0.1

60.

22**

-0.0

20.

01-0

.09

0.24

**0.

23**

-0.4

5**

Not

e:n

=22

0.*

p<

0.05

;**

p<

0.01

;***

p<

0.00

1.Po

s.co

nseq

uenc

eex

p.=

posi

tive

cons

eque

nce

expe

ctat

ions

,Tim

eof

Tr.a

tten

danc

e=

tim

eof

trai

ning

atte

ndan

ce.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 45© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

To test our hypotheses, a hierarchical linear regression analysis with implementationrate as dependent variable was conducted. In the first step, the independent effect of jobdissatisfaction on transfer was measured (Hypothesis 1). As expected, a significantnegative relationship emerged between job dissatisfaction and the number of imple-mentations made back on the job (B = -0.09, SEB (Standard Error of CoefficientB) = 0.02, b = -0.28, p < 0.001), accounting for 8 percent of the variance, F(1, 219) = 18.32,p < 0.001 (see Table 2).

Step 2 of the hierarchical regression analysis tested for the independent effect ofmotivation to transfer as well as for positive consequence expectations on implemen-tation rate, DF(3, 217) = 2.86, p = 0.059. In line with Hypothesis 2, results revealed asignificant positive relationship between motivation to transfer and training transfer,B = 0.06, SEB = 0.04, b = 0.13, p = 0.047. No significant effect was found for the expecta-tions of positive transfer consequences on implementation rate, B = 0.03, SEB = 0.03,b = 0.07, p = 0.342.

In the third step, both two-way interaction terms, job dissatisfaction and motivationto transfer as well as job dissatisfaction and positive consequence expectations, wereadded to the hierarchical regression analysis. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, analysisrevealed a significant interaction effect between job dissatisfaction and motivation totransfer (B = 0.06, SEB = 0.03, b = 0.15, p = 0.037), indicating a buffering effect of moti-vation to transfer on the relationship between job dissatisfaction and the actual amountof implementations made (see Figure 2). No significant effect emerged for theinteraction between job dissatisfaction and positive consequence expectations, B = 0.03,SEB = 0.02, b = 0.11, p = 0.134. By adding the interaction terms, 5 percent incrementalvariance of the actual implementation rate was explained, DF(5, 215) = 5.60, p = 0.004.

In order to interpret the buffering effect of motivation to transfer on the relationshipbetween job dissatisfaction and actual transfer and to test our Hypothesis 4, the three-way interaction between job dissatisfaction, motivation to transfer and expected posi-tive consequences was added in step 4 of the regression. Supporting our hypothesis,results revealed a significant three-way interaction effect between motivation totransfer, job dissatisfaction and expected positive consequences (B = 0.08, SEB = 0.03,b = 0.24, p = 0.005). Overall, step 4 of the hierarchical regression analysis explainedsignificant incremental variance (DR2 = 0.03, DF(6, 214) = 7.78, p = 0.006), accounting for18 percent of the variance of the implementations made back on the job.

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

low high

Job dissatisfaction

motivation to transfer

low

motivation to transfer

high

Imp

lem

en

tatio

n r

ate

Figure 2: Simple slopes of motivation to transfer predicting actual training transfer at 1standard deviation below and above the mean of job (dis)satisfaction.

46 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

To analyze the nature of the three-way interaction, simple slopes were tested (atplus/min 1 SD) (Aiken & West, 1991) and slope differences were measured (Dawson &Richter, 2006). Figure 3 depicts the significant three-way interaction by plotting theregression lines separately for the case of high positive consequence expectations(Figure 3a) and low positive consequence expectations (Figure 3b). As assumed,analysis for slope differences revealed a significant difference between the effect ofmotivation to transfer on the relationship between job dissatisfaction and the actualimplementation rate in circumstances of high versus low positive consequence expec-tations, t(214) = 3.12, p = 0.002. Only in the case of high positive consequence expecta-tions and high motivation to transfer did dissatisfied employees transfer the same

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

low high

Job dissatisfaction

motivation to transfer

low

motivation to transfer

high

Imp

lem

en

tatio

n r

ate

(a)

(b)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

low high

Job dissatisfaction

motivation to transfer

low

motivation to transfer

high

Imp

lem

en

tatio

n r

ate

Figure 3: Simple slopes of motivation to transfer predicting actual training transfer at 1standard deviation (SD) below and above the mean of job (dis)satisfaction, in the case of (a)

high and (b) low expected positive transfer consequences.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 47© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

amount than satisfied employees, t(214) = 1.44, p = 0.152. If motivation to transfer waslow, high positive consequence expectations could not buffer the negative effectof job dissatisfaction on training transfer indicated by the actual number of imple-mented suggestions, t(214) = -4.41, p < 0.001 (slope difference between high andlow motivation to transfer in case of high consequence expectations: t(214) = 2.98,p = 0.003).

In the case of low positive consequence expectations, on the other hand, a significantdecrease of training transfer in case of job dissatisfaction occurs, no matter if motivationto transfer is high (t(214) = -2.81, p = 0.005), or low t(214) = -3.76, p < 0.001 (slopedifference between high and low motivation to transfer in case of low consequenceexpectations: t(214) = 0.34, p = 0.731). As is apparent, the buffering effect of motivationto transfer on the relationship between job dissatisfaction and training transfer existsonly in the case of high positive consequence expectations. Evidently, if no positiveconsequences were expected subsequent to transfer, dissatisfied employees transferredsignificantly less than persons who were satisfied with their job, irrespective of howhigh or low their motivation to transfer was. In other words, motivation to transfer onlyhas an impact if dissatisfied persons expect to gain positive rewards or acknowledg-ment as a consequence of transfer. Table 2 summarizes the results of the hierarchicallinear multiple regression analysis.

DiscussionGiven that training investments do not always result in the desired transfer success, thepresent study looked at this problem from a different angle by focusing on a possibleinhibitor of training transfer. Because of the high number of studies demonstrating adetrimental effect of job dissatisfaction on work-related attitudes and work-relevantbehavior (Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Turnley &Feldman, 2000; Wheeler et al., 2007), a similar negative effect was expected for trainingtransfer. As expected, job dissatisfaction was found to be negatively (inversely) relatedto training transfer. Trainees who were dissatisfied with their work situation proposedand implemented significantly fewer suggestions back at the workplace than traineeswho were satisfied with their work situation.

The major aim of this study was, however, to investigate which conditions andcircumstances would buffer the negative effect of job dissatisfaction on training trans-fer. In line with earlier research (Gegenfurtner et al., 2009), motivation to transferemerged to have a positive effect on training transfer. Trainees who were motivated totransfer subsequently to training proposed and implemented more training-relatedsuggestions to their daily work than trainees with low levels of motivation to transfer.Beyond that, we proposed that a high motivation to transfer might buffer the negativerelationship between job dissatisfaction and training transfer. Consistent with ourassumption, the results revealed a significant moderation effect of motivation to trans-fer on the relationship between job dissatisfaction and training transfer, indicating asignificant increase in transfer success among highly motivated dissatisfied employeesin comparison to low-motivated dissatisfied employees.

According to our last hypothesis, this buffering effect should only be visible undercertain circumstances, that is, if employees expect positive consequences from transfer,such as acknowledgment or rewards. As hypothesized, motivation to transfer appearedto buffer the negative effect of job dissatisfaction on training transfer only if employeesexpected adequate positive personal outcomes. If no positive consequences wereanticipated, a high motivation to transfer was no longer able to buffer the negative effectof job dissatisfaction on training transfer. In other words, dissatisfied employees pro-posed and implemented the same amount of suggestions as satisfied employees onlywhere they had both a high motivation to transfer and high expectations of positivetransfer consequences.

This result is in line with earlier research, such as Zhou and George’s (2001) findingsconcerning the buffering effect of an acknowledging organizational environment onthe relation between job dissatisfaction and creativity, and both Noe’s (1986) and

48 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Tab

le2:

Res

ults

ofa

hier

arch

ical

regr

essi

onan

alys

ispr

edic

ting

the

actu

alim

plem

enta

tion

rate

Step

1St

ep2

Step

3St

ep4

BSE

Bb

BSE

Bb

BSE

Bb

BSE

Bb

Job

dis

sati

sfac

tion

-0.0

90.

02-0

.28*

**-0

.07

0.02

-0.2

3**

-0.0

50.

02-0

.17*

-0.0

70.

02-0

.24*

*M

otiv

atio

nto

tran

sfer

0.06

0.04

0.13

*0.

080.

030.

16*

0.10

0.04

0.21

**Po

siti

veco

nseq

uenc

eex

pect

atio

ns0.

030.

030.

070.

020.

030.

060.

040.

030.

10

JobD

issa

tisf

*Mot

ivTr

0.06

0.03

0.15

*0.

090.

030.

24**

JobD

issa

tisf

*Pos

Con

sExp

0.03

0.02

0.11

0.03

0.02

0.10

Mot

ivTr

*Job

Dis

sati

sf*

PosC

onsE

xp0.

080.

030.

23**

Not

e:R

egre

ssio

nre

sults

:St

ep1

(R2

=0.

08,

F=

18.3

2***

),St

ep2

(R2

=0.

10,

DR2

=0.

02,

DF=

2.86

),St

ep3

(R2

=0.

15,

DR2

=0.

05,

DF=

5.60

**),

Step

3(R

2=

0.18

,DR

2=

0.03

,DF

=7.

78**

);n

=22

0.*

p<

0.05

,**

p<

0.01

,***

p<

0.00

1.SE

B=

Stan

dard

Err

orof

Coe

ffici

ent

B;J

obD

issa

tisf

=jo

bd

issa

tisf

acti

on,M

otiv

Tr=

mot

ivat

ion

totr

ansf

er,P

osC

onsE

xp=

posi

tive

cons

eque

nce

expe

ctat

ions

.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 49© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Rouiller and Goldstein’s (1993) claims that efforts to utilize learned behavior dependupon the degree of perceived support. Apparently, dissatisfied employees need acertain degree of organizational recognition to believe in their possibilities to changesomething and to turn their motivation to transfer into actual transfer. In accordancewith this assumption, Bruggemann et al. (1975) as well as Büssing and colleagues(Büssing, 1992; Büssing & Bissels, 1998; Büssing et al., 2000) claimed that dissatisfiedemployees who perceive themselves to be in control over the situation on the one handand to have the ability to solve problems in a new manner on the other are more likelyto take action to increase their level of contentment than dissatisfied employeeswithout these factors.

To sum up, the current study was able to demonstrate that job dissatisfaction has asimilar negative effect on training transfer to various other work-related variables.This negative effect can result in a significantly lower amount of training transfer,unless trainees anticipate positive consequences to transfer and are highly motivatedto transfer their newly gained skills and knowledge. Considering the extent of invest-ments made by organizations, and the fact that job dissatisfaction is a phenomenonthat can occur even in the most popular companies, action must be taken to at leastminimize this negative effect. As indicated by the results, organizations couldmotivate their employees to transfer the acquired skills by announcing tokens ofrecognition (e.g. appreciation, promotion, pay raise, increase in responsibility) wheretraining successful transferred. By discussing the purpose of training with theaffected employees prior to training, giving them a better idea of the value of trans-ferring the learned knowledge to the job context, and clarifying possible positiveconsequences of training transfer for their career, the negative consequences of jobdissatisfaction might be counteracted.

Undoubtedly, there are limitations to our findings. First of all, it should be notedthat the findings are correlational only. Although there are studies that indicatethat it is the motivation to transfer and the expectation of positive transfer conse-quences that influence training transfer than vice versa (for a review, see Gegenfurt-ner et al., 2009; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993), the results presented in this study do notwarrant causal interpretation. Furthermore, because – apart from the current study –little is known on the effect of job dissatisfaction on training transfer, further inves-tigation of this relationship is warranted. To ensure the proposed causality directionand post-training improvements, longitudinal data would be needed; ideally includ-ing not only a pre-assessment of the variables found to affect transfer success, butalso a knowledge/skill pre-test on the content acquired in training. Although wecontrolled for a relatively large number of variables (e.g. content validity of training,perceived trainer effectiveness, quality of training material), we certainly cannotrule out the influence of third variables buffering the negative effect of job dissatis-faction on training transfer. Including other organizational climate characteristicssuch as supervisor or co-worker support might be helpful to clarify the impactof the work environment. Finally, it should be noted that our findings are basedon measures of self-report only. In the present large-scale study, which covered avariety of training programs and occupational areas, this seemed the only feasiblemethod, but future studies are now required to test current findings by assessingtransfer with the help of objective transfer measures, such as supervisor ratings,pre-/post-tests of the respective key data and/or repeated work-related transfercontrols.

Despite these limitations, we believe that the results of the current study contributeto knowledge on training transfer by illustrating the role of job dissatisfaction intransfer process. Findings suggest that even if employees are currently dissatisfied,training can still be effective given that an organization supports the motivation totransfer by promising positive transfer consequences. Although there certainly is adestructive side of job dissatisfaction, our results demonstrate that organizations cancounterbalance this negative effect on training transfer by supporting and acknowl-edging their employees’ effort to transfer their newly gained knowledge and skills totheir daily work life.

50 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

ReferencesAiken, L. S. and West, S. G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions

(Newbury Park, CA: Sage).Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1966), ‘Organizational alienation: a comparative analysis’, American

Sociological Review, 31, 497–507.American Society for Training and Development (2008), State of industry report, from the

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) website. Available at: http://www.astd.org/TD/Special/0811_Investment_in_Learning.htm (accessed 28 August2011).

Aschenbrener, M., Terry, R., Torres, R. and Smith, A. (2007), Assessment of creativity and jobsatisfaction of second year agricultural education teachers, Paper presented at the AAAE ResearchConference, Minneapolis.

Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S. (1997), ‘Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer oftraining’, Personnel Review, 26, 201–13.

Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988), ‘Transfer of training: a review and directions for futureresearch’, Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.

Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J. and Loher, B. T. (1991), ‘The perils of participation: effects of choiceof training on trainee motivation and learning’, Personnel Psychology, 44, 51–65.

Blauner, R. (1964), Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry (Chicago, IL:Chicago University Press).

Brayfield, A. H. and Crockett, W. H. (1955), ‘Employee attitudes and employee performance’,Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396–424.

Brayfield, A. H. and Rothe, H. F. (1951), ‘An index of job satisfaction’, Journal of Applied Psychology,35, 307–11.

Bruggemann, A., Groskurth, P. and Ulich, E. (1975), Arbeitszufriedenheit [Job satisfaction]. (Bern,Switzerland: Huber).

Burke, L. A. and Hutchins, H. (2009), ‘Training transfer: an integrative literature review’, HumanResource Development Review, 6, 263–96.

Büssing, A. (1992), ‘A dynamic view of job satisfaction’, Work and Stress, 6, 239–59.Büssing, A. and Bissels, T. (1998), ‘Different forms of work satisfaction: concept and qualitative

research’, European Psychologist, 3, 209–18.Büssing, A., Bissels, T., Herbig, B. and Krüsken, J. (2000), ‘Formen von Arbeitszufriedenheit im

Experiment: Differentielle Auswirkungen auf die Beziehung von Wissen und Handeln [Typesof job satisfaction in the experiment: differential effects on the relationship between knowledgeand action]’. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 44, 27–37.

Clarke, N. (2002), ‘Job/work environment factors influencing training transfer within a humanservice agency: some indicative support for Baldwin and Ford’s transfer climate construct’,International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 146–62.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A. and Noe, R. A. (2000), ‘Toward an integrative theory of trainingmotivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research’, Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 678–707.

Dawson, J. F. and Richter, A. W. (2006), ‘Probing three-way interactions in moderated multipleregression: development and application of a slope difference test’, Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 91, 917–26.

Egan, T. M., Yang, B. and Bartlett, K. R. (2004), ‘The effects of organizational learning culture andjob satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention’, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 15, 279–301.

Farrell, D. (1983), ‘Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: a multi-dimensional scaling study’, Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596–607.

Fitzgerald, S. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Suchday, S. and Ewart, C. K. (2003), ‘Anger in youngblack and white workers: effects of job control, dissatisfaction, and support’, Journal of Behav-ioral Medicine, 26, 283–96.

Ford, J. K. (1997), ‘Advances in Training Research and Practice: An Historical Perspective’, in J.Ford, S. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas and M. Teachout (eds), Improving Training Effectivenessin Work Organizations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 1–18.

Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K., Festner, D. and Gruber, H. (2009), ‘Motivation to transfer train-ing: an integrative literature review’, Human Resource Development Review, 8, 403–23.

Grossman, R. and Salas, E. (2011), ‘The transfer of training: what really matters’, InternationalJournal of Training and Development, 15, 103–20.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L. and Hayes, T. L. (2002), ‘Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis’, Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 268–79.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 51© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O. and Capwell, D. F. (1957), Job Attitudes: Review ofResearch and Opinion (Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. B. (1959), The Motivation to Work (New York: Wiley).Hirschman, A. O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Hirschman, A. O. (1974), ‘Exit, voice, and loyalty: further reflections and a survey of recent

contributions’, Social Science Information, 13, 7–26.Holton, E. F. III (1996), ‘The flawed four-level evaluation model’, Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 7, 5–21.Holton, E. F. III (2005), ‘Holton’s evaluation model: new evidence and construct elaborations’,

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 37–54.Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A. and Ruona, W. E. (2000), ‘Development of a generalized learning

transfer system inventory’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 333–60.Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A., Bookter, A. I. and Yamkovenko, V. B. (2007), ‘Convergent and

divergent validity of the learning transfer system inventory’, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 18, 3, 385–419.

Hom, P. W. and Griffeth, R. W. (1991), ‘Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory:cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350–66.

Hom, P. W. and Kinicki, A. J. (2001), ‘Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfactiondrives employee turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 975–87.

Iaffaldano, M. T. and Muchinsky, P. M. (1985), ‘Job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–73.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C. and Kluger, A. N. (1998), ‘Dispositional effectson job and life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations’, Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 17–31.

Kankaanranta, T., Nummi, T., Vainiomäki, J., Halila, H., Hyppölä, H., Isokoski, M., Kujala, S.,Kumpusalo, E., Mattila, K., Virjo, I., Vänska, J. and Rissanen, P. (2007), ‘The role of job satis-faction, job dissatisfaction and demographic factors on physicians’ intention to switch worksector from public to private’, Health Policy, 83, 50–64.

Kanungo, R. N. (1979), ‘The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited’, PsychologicalBulletin, 86, 119–38.

Kauffeld, S., Bates, R., Holton, E. F. III and Müller, A. (2008), ‘Das deutsche Lerntransfer-System-Inventar (GLTSI): psychometrische Überprüfung der deutschsprachigen Version [TheGerman Learning-Transfer-System-Inventory (GLTSI): psychometric validation of the Germanversion]’. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 7, 50–69.

Kauffeld, S., Brenneke, J. and Strack, M. (2009), ‘Erfolge Sichtbar Machen: Das Maßnahmen-Erfolgs-Inventar (MEI) zur Bewertung von Trainings [Visualizing Successes: TheMeasurement-Success Inventory for the Assessment of Training]’ in S. Kauffeld, S. Grote andE. Frieling (eds), Handbuch Kompetenzentwicklung (Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel), pp. 55–78.

Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A. and Carson, K. P. (2002), ‘Assessing theconstruct validity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis’, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 14–32.

Lee, S.-Y. and Whitford, A. B. (2007), ‘Exit, voice, loyalty, and pay: evidence from the publicworkforce’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 647–71.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D. (2002), ‘The nature and dimensionality of organizationalcitizenship behaviour: a critical review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,52–65.

Locke, E. A. (1976), ‘The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction’, in M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbookof Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally), pp. 1297–343.

Maslow, A. H. (1943), ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review, 50, 370–96.McHugh, M. D., Kutney-Lee, A., Cimiotti, J. P., Sloane, D. M. and Aiken, L. H. (2011), ‘Nurses’

widespread job dissatisfaction, burnout, and frustration with health benefits signal problemsfor patient care’, Health Affairs, 30, 202–10.

Mosel, J. N. (1957), ‘Why training programs fail to carry over’, Personnel, 4, 56–64.Münsterberg, H. (1913), Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).Noe, R. A. (1986), ‘Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effective-

ness’, Academy of Management Review, 11, 736–49.Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Homewood, IL:

Richard D. Irwin, Inc.).Rouiller, J. Z. and Goldstein, I. L. (1993), ‘The relationship between organizational transfer climate

and positive transfer of training’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377–90.Rusbult, C. and Zembrodt, I. M. (1983), ‘Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: a

multidimensional scaling analysis’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 274–93.

52 International Journal of Training and Development© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M. and Gunn, L. K. (1982), ‘Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: responsesto dissatisfaction in romantic involvements’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,1230–42.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrel, D., Rogers, G. and Mainous, A. G. III (1988), ‘Impact of exchange variableson exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job satisfac-tion’, Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599–627.

Saks, A. M. (2002), ‘So what is a good transfer of training estimate? A reply to Fitzpatrick’, TheIndustrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39, 29–30.

Schaefer, J. A. and Moos, R. H. (1996), ‘Effects of work stressors and work climate on long-termcare staff’s job morale and functioning’, Research in Nursing and Health, 19, 63–73.

Schmit, M. J. and Alscheid, S. P. (1995), ‘Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: makingtheoretical and empirical connections’, Personnel Psychology, 48, 521–36.

Seeman, M. (1959), ‘On the meaning of alienation’, American Sociological Review, 24, 783–91.Staw, B. M. (1984), ‘Organizational behavior: a review and reformulation of the field’s outcome

variables’, Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 627–66.Taylor, C. W. (1952), ‘Pretesting saves training costs’. Personnel Psychology, 5, 213–39.Tracey, J. B. and Tews, M. J. (2005), ‘Construct validity of a general training climate scale’,

Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353–74.Turnley, W. H. and Feldman, D. C. (2000), ‘Re-examining the effects of psychological contract

violations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators’, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 21, 25–42.

Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley).Wheeler, A. R., Coleman Gallagher, V., Brouer, R. L. and Sablynski, C. J. (2007), ‘When person-

organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: the moderating role of perceived jobmobility’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 203–19.

Wong, T.-H. (1989), ‘The impact of job satisfaction on intention to change jobs among secondaryschool teachers in Hong Kong’, CUHK Educational Journal, 17, 176–85.

Zhou, J. and George, J. M. (2001), ‘When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging theexpression of voice’, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–96.

Job dissatisfaction and training transfer 53© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.