International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 3(2), 181–200
Motivation to Improve Work through
Learning: A Conceptual Model
Kueh Hua Ng
Sarawak University of Malaysia, Malaysia
Rusli Ahmad
Sarawak University of Malaysia, Malaysia
This study aims to enhance our current understanding of the transfer of train-
ing by proposing a conceptual model that supports the mediating role of moti-
vation to improve work through learning about the relationship between social
support and the transfer of training. The examination of motivation to improve
work through motivation to improve work through a learning construct offers a
holistic view pertaining to a learner’s profile in a workplace setting, which em-
phasizes learning for the improvement of work performance. The proposed
conceptual model is expected to benefit human resource development the-
ory building, as well as field practitioners by emphasizing the motivational
aspects crucial for successful transfer of training.
Keywords: Motivation, situated learning, organizational support, supervision,
peer support, transfer of training, knowledge transfer, professional
development
Introduction
Since performance improvement is the ultimate goal of all training programs
(Baldwin, Ford & Blume, 2009; Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Lancester, Di Milia
& Cameron, 2013), it is critical for a trainee to possess the ability to apply
knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) learned from a training in his or her
job environment. Unfortunately, even when training is carefully planned and
implemented, it is considered as a failure if trainees are incapable of trans-
ferring new KSA to their job (Cheng & Hampson, 2007). In fact, training is
only successful when trainees effectively transfer what they have learned
from training to their job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). In basic terms, the trans-
fer of training is regarded as a trainee’s ability to transfer what he or she
has learned during his or her training back to the workplace (Baldwin et al.,
2009; Holton, 2005; Switzer, Nagy & Mullins, 2005).
While performance improvement is sought after by every organization,
most of the training and development programs failed to produce and sus-
tain the trainee intention to learn and the ability to transfer KSA to the
workplace (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Subedi, 2004). It is estimated that only 62 percent of the
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/3_181-200.pdf
182 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
trainees transfer what they have learned immediately after a training, 44
percent after six months, and 34 percent after one year (Saks, 2002; Saks
& Belcourt, 2006). Clearly, a large amount of training expenditure is wasted
due to the meager transfer of training (Cheng & Hampson, 2007). Hence,
for decades, researchers and practitioners have been attempting to identify
the significant factors that could facilitate or inhibit the transfer of training.
Traditionally, the majority of studies paid sole attention on the design
and the delivery of the training programs (Baldwin et al., 2009). However,
growing research has shown that individual and situational factors play
salient roles in predicting the transfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988;
Chiaburu, 2010; Colquitt, LePine & Noe, 2000; Festner & Gruber, 2008;
Seyler, Holton, Bates, Burnett & Carvalho 1998). Situational factors, such
as social support emanating from the management, supervisor, and peers,
are capable to facilitate a successful transfer of new KSA to the daily job
tasks (Chiaburu, 2010; Chiaburu & Tekleab, 2005; Merriam & Leahy, 2005;
Pham, Segers & Gijselaers, 2013). Despite the fact that social support has
been recognized as an important factor that may enhance motivation and
transfer of training, research in this area is characterized by inconsistent
findings (Blume, Ford, Baldwin & Huang, 2010; Cheng & Hampson, 2007;
Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005), lack of empirical studies, and insufficient un-
derstanding of the constructs (Bates, Holton, Seyler & Carvalho, 2000;
Chiaburu, 2010; Van den Bossche, Segers & Jansen, 2010).
The effort to improve the understanding of the transfer of training re-
veals that motivation to learn (Ismail, Bongogoh & Segaran, 2008; Switzer
et al., 2005) and/or motivation to transfer (Nijman, Nijhof, Wognum & Veld-
kamp, 2006) play significant roles in linking the relationship between social
support and the transfer of training. Motivation to learn is described as a
trainee’s enthusiasm to learn the contents of the training programs (Ayres,
2005; Colquitt et al., 2000; Noe, 1986), whereas motivation to transfer
refers to their enthusiasm to use what has been learned in their job envi-
ronment (Holton, 2005; Seyler et al., 1998).
These findings significantly advance our understanding of the fact that
trainee motivation has a profound role in cultivating the transfer of training.
However, extant meta-analytic work and integrative reviews (e.g. Baldwin et
al., 2009; Blume et al., 2010; Cheng & Hampson, 2007; Cheng & Ho,
2001; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Subedi, 2004) asserted that more work
is needed to advance our current knowledge about the transfer of training.
In literature, there is an issue on how the motivational construct has
been traditionally conceptualized in the context of training. In the context of
human resource development (HRD), many researchers have the tendency
to conceptualize motivation solely as a learner’s motivation to learn the
training contents (e.g. Chiaburu & Tekleab, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2000). The
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 183
traditional concept is somewhat narrow, because it does not acknowledge
the fact that motivation in HRD involves the motivation to transfer new KSA
to their job environment (Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Holton, 2005; Naquin
& Holton, 2002). In other words, a successful transfer of training is not
only concerned about the trainees’ motivation to learn in training, but also
involves their motivation to improve their job in a workplace context.
Although researchers have now acknowledged the importance of motiva-
tion to transfer, in addition to motivation to learn, the majority of studies
have failed to investigate both types of motivation as an integrated con-
struct (Battistelli, 2008; Holton, 2005; Machin & Fogarty, 2004; Naquin
& Holton, 2002). The exploration of motivation to learn and motivation to
transfer as separate constructs is undeniably important. However, some re-
searchers have raised the question, whether examining the motivation to
learn and the motivation to transfer as separate constructs reflects the re-
ality of a trainee motivation to attend training in a workplace setting. This is
due to the fact that in the workplace, the majority, if not all, trainees attend
training with the focal aim to improve their work performance. To achieve
improved work performance, trainees must have the tendency to feel moti-
vated to learn the training materials and to perform what has been learned
during the training in daily job tasks. Hence, the integration of both the mo-
tivation to learn and the motivation to transfer, namely the motivation to
improve work through learning (MTIWL) (Holton, 2005) is more accurate in
reflecting the profile of learners in the context of a workplace than simple
motivation to learn and/or motivation to transfer constructs.
This paper, therefore, attempts to explore MTIWL as a mediating mech-
anism that links social support and the transfer of training. Holton and
Baldwin (2003) maintained that ‘[MTIWL] construct is potentially a more
powerful motivational construct, because it incorporates both dimensions
of motivation critical to achieving transfer outcomes.’ (p. 20). MTIWL is a
better construct to explain the transfer of training mainly due to its recog-
nition of complex human motivation in training and work situations. Due
to the incorporation of MTIWL construct that reflects the nature of trainee
motivation in both learning, as well as in the implementation of training to
improve work performance, it may advance our current understanding of the
learner’s motivation that significantly facilitates the effects of social support
on the transfer of training.
Literature Review
The Concept of MTIWL
Generally, in the transfer of training studies, motivation has been measured
in terms of trainee motivation to acquire new KSA from training programs
(Baldwin et al., 2009; Holton, 2005). In order to ensure positive transfer
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
184 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
of training, it is crucial for a trainee to possess the motivation to learn the
training contents and also possess the motivation to apply new learning
in the job environment (Axtell, Maitlis & Yearta, 1997; Chiaburu & Lindsay,
2008; Kontoghiorghes, 2001, 2002, 2004; Pham et al., 2010).
MTIWL incorporates the elements of two basic motivational constructs
in HRD with a necessity to facilitate the transfer of training, namely moti-
vation to learn and motivation to transfer. Acknowledging the importance
of both motivation to learn and motivation to transfer in the framework of
the transfer of training, Naquin and Holton (2002, p. 358) argue that ‘it
is the combined motivational influences that will influence desired training
outcomes.’ The notion of MTIWL is robust because it completely captures
the key elements of motivation that are important for the transfer of train-
ing; therefore, this view is generally well agreed upon by researchers. For
example, Nikandrou, Brinia and Bereri (2009, p. 267) argue that ‘in cases
where there was great motivation to learn, but lack of motivation to trans-
fer, no training transfer at work took place.’ Their statement indicates that
motivation in both training and work situations are equally useful to invoke
the trainee desires in the learning and transfer processes.
Despite the facade that MTIWL merely combines two dimensions of mo-
tivation (i.e. motivation to learn and motivation to transfer) in an additive
method (Holton, 2005; Naquin & Holton, 2002), it is a more holistic ap-
proach towards measuring learner motivation and it is likely that this higher-
order construct has more significant effect on the transfer of training than
a single motivation to learn or motivation to transfer construct. This is be-
cause ‘persons entering a learning situation with high levels of MTIWL are
likely to have greater motivation to engage in work relevant learning experi-
ences offered with strong transfer designs that emphasize practice and job
application than persons with high levels of simple [motivation to learn]’
(Holton, 2005, p. 48).
As previously mentioned, research on MTIWL is relatively scant due to
the lack of attention to this construct. Indeed, many empirical studies con-
tinue to divide the motivation construct in terms of trainee motivation to
learn in the context of training and motivation to transfer training to their
job. Naquin and Holton’s (2002) study was the first to examine MTIWL and
its antecedents. Extroversion, positive affectivity, and work commitment di-
rectly affected MTIWL, whereas conscientiousness and agreeableness in-
fluenced MTIWL via work commitment. Nonetheless, their study focused on
determining the dispositional factors affecting MTIWL without attempting
to examine MTIWL as a valid mediator that links social support and the
transfer of training.
In recent years, the burgeoning literature supports the importance of
work environment factors in cultivating motivation to learn, motivation to
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 185
transfer, and transfer of training (Chiaburu, 2010; Grossman & Salas,
2011; Lancester et al., 2013; Lim & Morris, 2006; Switzer et al., 2005).
Also, studies of best practices in the transfer of training suggest that sup-
port originating from the organization, supervisor, and peers emerged as
the central practice that encouraged positive transfer of training (Burke &
Hutchins, 2008; Hutchins, 2009). Such findings reasoned the need to ex-
plore the role of MTIWL in the relationship between social support and the
transfer of training.
The Mediating Role of MTIWL and the Relationship between Perceived
Organizational Support (POS) and the Transfer of Training
POS, as the term suggests, is closely associated with a person’s general
view regarding the degree to which an organization supports his or her wel-
fare as an employee (Chen, Eisenberger, Johnson, Sucharski & Aselage,
2009). Employees also perceive organizational support as a form of their
organization’s commitment to them (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson
& Sowa, 1986). Drawing on the notion of organizational support theory,
an employee forms a general belief of the extent to which an organization
appreciates his or her contributions and concerns about his or her well-
being. This belief is formed in order to meet the socio-emotional needs and
to evaluate the benefits of elevated work effort (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002). Based upon the assumption of social reciprocity, employees tend
to develop an obligation in the form of concern about their organization’s
welfare when they perceived support from their organization (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). Employees’ concern about the welfare could manifest
itself in terms of loyalty and assistance to aid the organization in reaching
its goals.
The assumptions of social exchange theory may hold true in the context
of training. When sufficient support is provided by an organization, a trainee
is likely to feel motivated to get involved in acquiring new KSA and later
transfer them to the workplace. This might result in better performance
and, as a consequence, helps the organization to reach its goals (Battistelli,
2008; Chiaburu, Van Dam & Hutchins, 2010). As noted earlier, this is based
upon the principle that employees tend to reciprocate with positive attitudes
if they perceive that their organization values their well-being.
There are a few empirical studies that directly examine the construct
of MTIWL in the past. For example, Veeraya and Sasi (2011) found so-
cial exchange process to be a valid predictor of MTIWL. Using structural
equation modeling analysis, they found perceived justice and POS signifi-
cantly affected work-related attitude, which in turn led to the enhancement
of MTIWL among private hospital employees. Ascher’s (2012) quantitative
study found that transfer of training was a valid outcome of MTIWL.
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
186 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
Most of the previous empirical studies, however, separately examined
the concept of motivation in the form of motivation to learn and/or motiva-
tion to transfer. Recently, a study by Lee, Lee, Lee and Park (2014) found
that the motivation to transfer was a significant mediator that linked the
effects of POS on the transfer of training. Trainees in a low performer group
had a higher motivation to integrate new KSA in their job environment than
the high performer group when they perceived their organization supported
their learning. Such perception was due to the trainees’ assumption that
their organization valued the process and responsibility of employee devel-
opment.
Empirical work by Battistelli (2008) examined three aspects of motiva-
tion as the outcomes of POS, namely (1) motivation to obtain professional
skills; (2) motivation to apply new knowledge acquired from training in the
job environment; and (3) motivation to undergo training for the purpose
of increasing social status and company standing. The extent to which an
organization provided support in the context of training resulted in the mo-
tivation of trainees to implement new KSA from training and boosted their
motivation to apply the KSA when they returned to work. The conclusion
of the study was that trainee motivation in learning training materials and
motivation to apply training significantly contributed to the perception of the
transfer of training.
In a longitudinal analysis by Chiaburu et al. (2010), they revealed that
motivation to transfer was predicted by social support originating from the
organization. The study discovered that POS served as a predictor of moti-
vation to transfer and the actual transfer of training. In other words, when
trainees perceived their organization as caring, they had greater motivation
to use what they have learned from the training in their job environment.
Further analysis revealed that motivation to transfer acted as the mediating
variable that linked POS and supervisor support to the transfer of training.
Similar findings were argued by Chiaburu (2010).
Nikandrou et al.’s (2009) qualitative study, which used in-depth inter-
views to uncover the underlying processes of the transfer of training, found
evidence of the effects of organizational climate on the transfer of train-
ing, by means of both motivation to learn training materials and motivation
to apply training in their job. The results of the study found discouraging
transfer among the participants. Participants commented that, for exam-
ple, their organization did not care about their ability to apply training in
order to achieve performance improvement. Thus, the lack of caring from
the organization affected the trainees’ motivation to learn, as well as their
motivation to apply their training in their job environment. Towards the end,
the majority of participants stated that there was no performance improve-
ment following the training. The essence of the findings demonstrated the
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 187
pressing necessity of perceived support from the organization, as well as
high motivation to learn and motivation to transfer among the trainees if
transfer of training is anticipated.
Based upon the theory of organizational support and previous empirical
studies, the authors formulate the following proposition:
P1 MTIWL will significantly mediate the relationship between POS and
the transfer of training.
The Mediating Role of MTIWL in the Relationship between Supervisor
Support and the Transfer of Training
Supervisor support has been widely regarded as a key work environmental
variable affecting the transfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Elangovan
& Karakowsky, 1999; Lancester et al., 2013; Nijman et al., 2006) and it
is critical in creating a transfer friendly climate (Axtell et al., 1997). Since
supervisor support is a multi-dimensional construct (Baldwin & Ford, 1988;
Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Grossman & Salas, 2011), examining it would
generate a significantly differing conceptualization (Nijman, 2004). For in-
stance, support originating from a supervisor is often regarded as the re-
inforcement of training in the workplace (Holton, Bates & Ruona, 2000),
whereas others defined it as supervisory behavior congruent to the objec-
tive of the training program (Xiao, 1996).
The notion of motivational theory that acknowledges the importance of
cognitive process of motivation can be used to describe the association
between supervisor support and transfer of training. In essence, Vroom’s
expectancy theory argues that a person is motivated to perform a task if
he or she believes that a specific action will generate good performance
and, in return, lead to desired outcomes (Yamnill & McLean, 2001). Based
upon the assumption of this theory, a trainee will be motivated to learn the
training contents and apply the learned materials when he or she recognizes
that such action might bring positive performance outcomes (Noe, 1986).
Encouragement from the supervisor in terms of clarification of the benefits
and advantages of attending a particular training may motivate the trainees
to learn new KSA from training and consequently motivate them to apply
what they have learned from the training in their job environment (Chiaburu
& Tekleab, 2005; Nijman et al., 2006; Switzer et al., 2005).
Bandura’s social learning theory offers some insights into trainee moti-
vation in training programs. The core of social learning theory lies in the
notion of self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Zimmerman, 2000). The
term self-efficacy is defined as a person’s belief about his or her ability to
successfully perform a task (Burke & Hutchins, 2008), while outcome ex-
pectations refer to the desired outcomes as a result of performance (Ban-
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
188 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
dura, 1993). To strengthen self-efficacy, a person needs to attain success
(enactive mastery), while training programs must be designed to assist him
or her to overcome failure (vicarious experience) (Tucker & McCarthy, 2001).
It is also vital for the person to observe others that have mastered the KSA
(modeling); furthermore, the person should be verbally encouraged to let
him or her exert more effort in training programs (verbal persuasion) (Tucker
& McCarthy, 2001).
In this instance, the extent to which supervisors support subordinates
through rewards, encouragement to attend and apply training, provision of
guidance to apply training and knowledge-sharing on how to apply training
is likely to increase their subordinates’ self-efficacy (Chiaburu & Tekleab,
2005; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd & Kudisch, 1995). In turn, employ-
ees with high self-efficacy in acquiring new KSA are motivated to be trained
and incorporate what has been learned in their daily work routines (Lee et
al., 2014).
The transfer of training literature dominantly suggests that supervisor
support is one of the most important stakeholders in an organization that
affects trainee motivation and the transfer of training (Blume et al., 2010;
Colquitt et al., 2000; Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Foxon, 1993). Nonetheless,
certain studies (e.g. Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005; Velada, Caetano, Michel,
Lyons & Kavanagh, 2007) found no significant relationship between the su-
pervisor support and the transfer of training. The mixed findings are the
result of diversity in the conceptualization of supervisor support in the liter-
ature (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Blume et al., 2010; Cheng & Ho, 2001). It is
worth noting, from a practical standpoint, that supervisor support has an ir-
regular and interspersed character with active discussions only before and
after training and periodic checks of progress (Chiaburu, 2010; Chiaburu
et al., 2010). Consequently, the nature of these practices may weaken the
effects of the supervisor support on the transfer of training.
Also, the way in which the supervisor support influences the transfer of
training is unclear (Nijman, 2004). That is, despite the fact that most of
the previous studies examined the direct effects of supervisor support on
the transfer of training (e.g. Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Lim & Morris, 2006),
a substantial number of studies posited that the relationship between su-
pervisor support and the transfer of training is mediated by the motivation
to learn and/or the motivation to transfer training to the job environment.
The inclusion of motivation construct as a mediator linking supervisor sup-
port and transfer of training has produced significant and positive results.
Employing social exchange theory, Scaduto, Lindsay and Chiaburu (2008)
found that supervisor support was critical for skills transfer, maintenance
and generalization of training. Motivation to learn, along with outcome ex-
pectancy, mediated such relationships.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 189
A number of studies found supervisor support, in terms of encourage-
ment to attend training and to apply new learning in the job environment,
significantly promotes motivation in training, leading to the transfer of train-
ing. In studies conducted by Chiaburu and Tekleab (2005) and Switzer et
al. (2005), the extent to which supervisors encouraged trainees to attend
training programs, aided the trainees to apply the training in their job en-
vironment, gave sufficient time to the trainees to apply KSA in their job,
and invoked their motivation to learn led to the trainees’ ability to apply,
adapt, and reproduce what they have learned during training in their daily
work tasks. Adequate opportunities to apply training in terms of the pro-
vision of materials and opportunity to practice new learning in their work
assignments had been proven to exert strong effects on the motivation and
transfer of training (Nijman et al., 2006; Pham et al., 2013).
Longitudinal studies suggest that supervisor support is not only a strong
predictor of trainee motivation and transfer of training immediately after
training, but across different points in time. Axtell et al. (1997) examined
long-term transfer of training based on non-managerial, technical employees
from a multi-national organization who attended one of six training courses
targeted at developing workplace interpersonal skills. In relation to their
work environment, supervisor support and motivation to transfer were pos-
itively correlated with the transfer of training one month and a year after
the training. It was concluded that support from the managers enhanced
trainees’ motivation to transfer training to their job environment. In turn,
motivation to transfer acted as the main predictor of short and long-term
transfer of training.
Kontoghiorghes (2004) expanded the traditional transfer of training
model by postulating that, aside from an immediate learning environment,
non-training work environment factors (e.g. socio-technical system design,
job design, quality management, and continuous learning environment) had
significant effects on motivation to learn and motivation to transfer training.
Positive learning transfer climate (e.g. supervisor and peer support) was
the strongest predictor of transfer of training and job performance through
motivation to learn and motivation to transfer training to the job.
Qualitative studies generally support the findings that derived from the
quantitative studies described above. Lancester et al. (2013), Nikandrou et
al. (2009), Lim and Johnson (2002), and Lim (2000) measured the effects
of supervisor support on trainee motivation and the transfer of training by
employing a series of interviews to gain a better comprehension on these
relationships. The results advocated that the most significant predictor that
influenced the transfer of training was the provision of support from the
supervisor before, during, and after training. They maintained that most
trainees had a greater motivation to learn and motivation to transfer, as well
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
190 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
as positive transfer of training only when they reported having supervisors
who openly discussed the training and provided sufficient training feedback.
Since many of the previous studies found significant correlation between
supervisor support and transfer of training via motivation to learn and/or
motivation to transfer, it is possible that the findings will also hold true for
MTIWL construct. Considering satisfactory support from the literature, the
authors propose the following proposition:
P2 MTIWL will significantly mediate the relationship between supervisor
support and the transfer of training.
The Mediating Role of MTIWL on the Relationship between Peer Support
and the Transfer of Training
Another stakeholder in an organization that can influence transfer of train-
ing is a person’s peer. In most cases, peer, or often called co-worker, sug-
gests any person who works along with an employee in an organization. It
includes superiors and subordinates. Nonetheless, the term co-worker is
more often associated with the person who has an identical rank with an
employee in an organization. An individual has peers who are associates
in social and job interactions (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Flatter orga-
nizational structure and the increase in the practices of team-based work
dramatically elevated the importance and frequencies of lateral interactions
between employees and their peers (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). In this situa-
tion, employees are encouraged to work collaboratively and to network with
peers (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004).
Not surprisingly, peer relationships are usually overlooked due to the
nature of most early management theories that dismissed the elements of
lateral relationships in management practices (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008).
Weber’s bureaucratic theory and Fayol’s administrative theory emphasized
the fundamentals of hierarchical and authoritarian qualities in management
and, at the same time, proposed that effective communication can only
be achieved with downward and formal practices through supervisors. The
Hawthorne studies marked the shift of perception towards the importance
of peers in the workplace. The Hawthorne studies showed that peers played
a major role in impacting employee’s intrinsic motivation and job perfor-
mance.
Unlike an organization or a supervisor that has authority and serves as
a superior, an employee has an equal status with his or her co-workers.
Also, because of the constant and greater presence of peers as opposed
to management and supervisors in almost every organization, an employee
is likely to interact more frequently with his or her co-workers (Chiaburu &
Harrison, 2008). The nature of this status makes the relationship between
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 191
an employee and his or her peers more proximal than the relationship with
the management and supervisors (Chiaburu, 2010; Chiaburu et al., 2010).
Due to a more proximal relationship than the management and supervisors,
peers provide critical functions for an employee in mentoring, information
exchange, and social support (Bates et al., 2000; Facteau et al., 1995).
First, in mentoring programs, peers act as mentors that could provide valu-
able work advices and information in order to accomplish necessary tasks.
Second, the function of peers in information exchange is largely related to
the discussion of work-related information or personal problems. Third, sup-
port from peers is a powerful source to reduce uncertainty and stress, which
can improve employee and organizational well-being (Chiaburu & Harrison,
2008).
In the domain of training, a trainee can benefit from having support-
ive peers. In order to ensure the transfer of training, it is important for a
trainee to receive encouragement, opportunities, and endorsement from
peers in his or her implementation of training in their job environment.
Further, peer networking and information sharing about training contents
greatly enhances the transfer of training (Hawley & Barnard, 2005). Be-
cause of the continuous flow of information and encouragement, support
originating from peers has been postulated to exert stronger influence on
the training outcomes than the one coming from the organization or super-
visors (Chiaburu, 2010).
As noted earlier, the concept of social learning theory argues that self-
efficacy and outcome expectations play important roles in cultivating a per-
son’s motivation to perform a task. In a training situation, a trainee, who
observes his or her peers performing a task, is likely to believe that he or
she is capable of performing a similar task. This belief can be reinforced
when the trainee notices that his or her peers successfully perform the task.
Positive feedback acquired from the peers can also enhance self-efficacy.
High self-efficacy may increase trainee’s effort and persistence, which culti-
vates the motivation for KSA acquisition and the motivation to apply training
in their job environment (Colquitt et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2014).
Although Van den Bossche et al.’s (2010) study of 35 academic employ-
ees in the Netherlands failed to confirm the hypothesis that argued peer
feedback to have a stronger effect on the transfer of training than super-
visor feedback; further analysis found that the frequency and helpfulness
of feedback emanating from peers was associated with greater motivation
to transfer and transfer of training than that coming from supervisors. A
similar study by Hawley and Barnard (2005) found that peer networking and
information sharing about training contents greatly enhanced the transfer
of training.
Furthermore, a study by Chiaburu and Marinova (2005) confirmed that
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
192 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
the extent of peer support was indeed a stronger predictor of the transfer
of training than supervisor support. Peer support, in the form of encourage-
ment to apply training to their job, is significantly related to both motivation
to learn and skill transfer. Such findings were attributed to trainee reliance
on team-level support from co-workers for training outcomes. The outcome
of the study provided strong grounds to Bates et al.’s (2000) argument that
peer support is more important to invoke training motivation and transfer of
training in certain work situations.
Other empirical studies showed that peers acted as important source of
support to trainees, similar to that coming from supervisors. Ayres’ (2005)
study suggested significant effect of peer support on trainee motivation to
attend and learn from training, which in turn led to positive transfer of train-
ing. Trainees, who perceived that their peers were helpful in the application
of new learning, encouraged them to apply the training, appreciated their
effort to transfer new learning, and understood they need more time to ap-
ply training in their job were reported having greater motivation to learn in
training programs than those who did not receive such support. As a result,
the trainees believed that they had the ability to practice what they have
learned from training back in the workplace.
Comparable findings were established by Facteau et al. (1995). Trainees
who reported having ample support from their peers had high levels of mo-
tivation to attend and learn from training programs, which in turn led to an
elevated transfer of training. Hence, the conclusion was that the relation-
ship between peer support and transfer of training was indirectly influenced
by the motivation to learn KSA from training programs.
From a practitioner’s perspective, there is growing recognition that peer
support has important impact on the level of training outcomes. Studies
of best practices related to the transfer of training (e.g. Burke & Hutchins,
2008; Hutchins, 2009) appeared to endorse the contributions of peer sup-
port in successful transfer of training. In this sense, practitioners com-
mented that peer support, particularly the reinforcement of the implementa-
tion of training in the job environment and the ability of the trainees to learn
effectively from peers through a variety of means contributed to positive
transfer of training.
Based on the literature, the authors propose the following proposition:
P3 MTIWL will significantly mediate the relationship between peer sup-
port and the transfer of training.
Conceptual Model
The following conceptual model is built based on relevant theories and em-
pirical evidence that supported the notion that MTIWL may mediate the
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 193
Social support:
Perceived organiza-
tional support (POS)
Supervisor support
Peer support
Motivation
to improve work
through learning
(MTIWL)
Transfer of training
Figure 1 Conceptual Model
relationship between social support and transfer of training. Social sup-
port, in terms of POS, supervisor support, and peer support may increase
trainee motivation to learn training contents and motivation to perform in
the job environment what has been learned during the training. As a result,
it might lead to successful integration of KSA learned during training in the
job environment.
Discussion
This conceptual paper examines the mediating role of MTIWL on the rela-
tionship between social support and transfer of training. It attempts to fill
the gaps in the literature by examining motivation to learn and motivation to
transfer as an integrated construct consistent with the recommendations
from several researchers (e.g. Naquin & Holton, 2002; Holton, 2005). This
integrated construct of motivation, namely MTIWL (Holton, 2005), is likely
to replicate a realistic trainee motivation in workplace situations that is not
only concerned about learning, but also about the motivation to improve
work performance.
As such, this conceptual paper has several theoretical and practical im-
plications. MTIWL acknowledges two important dimensions of motivation
critical for successful transfer of training, namely the motivation to learn
from training and the motivation to apply the skills obtained through train-
ing in the job environment. Without a doubt, a trainee with strong MTIWL
can transfer training much more effectively than those with simple motiva-
tion to learn, because the trainee is motivated to engage in learning and
enthused to incorporate training in the workplace settings. As a result, the
proposed conceptual model contributes to the theory development of HRD
by extending the current knowledge on MTIWL as a potential intervening
variable that is crucial in linking social support with the transfer of training.
Moreover, by investigating MTIWL as a potential mediator, linking the re-
lationship between social support and transfer of training, it may rectify
the inadequacies in the literature pertaining to inconsistent findings. The
construct of MTIWL could identify the profile of trainees who possess the
necessary motivation for learning and for transfer to occur in the work-
place. MTIWL can be enhanced with the use of emotional and instrumental
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
194 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
support emanating from the organization, supervisor, and peers. The con-
ceptual model depicts such interactions, which would assist researchers
to acknowledge and comprehend the realistic processes of the transfer of
training.
From a practical perspective, human resource managers could benefit
from the proposed conceptual model. This paper sends a clear message
pertaining to the importance of motivation in learning and application of
KSA for performance improvement. Human resource managers should ac-
knowledge the central role of trainee motivation in achieving positive trans-
fer of training. Without motivation to train and motivation to improve work, it
is unlikely that training can be transferred to the job environment effectively
even though the trainees might have the necessary capabilities.
Trainees who possess strong MTIWL are expected to demand a differ-
ent type of training experience; consequently, they need different learning
support structures (Holton, 2005). Therefore, human resource managers
should work together with the supervisors and training managers to identify
the training needs of these trainees. Training programs should be designed
with clear objectives and emphasize the practicality of learned KSA in the
job environment. Subsequently, it would attract trainees with strong motiva-
tion to participate and benefit from such training programs.
Also, it is critical for the practitioners to recognize that the support
from the organization, supervisor, and peers has differential effects on the
trainee motivation and the transfer of training. Since MTIWL is important,
careful intervention should be tailored for each level of support to ensure
the trainees are motivated in learning and performing trained KSA in the
workplace. The core intervention that can be performed is by improving the
ability of the stakeholders (i.e. organization, supervisors, and peers) in the
provision of encouragement for the trainees to participate in the learning
process, as well as guidance on how to incorporate new learning to improve
work performance.
Limitations and Future Research
The conceptual model has some limitations. The conceptual model focuses
on work environmental factors and the elements of motivation important
for successful transfer of training. However, other factors, such as training
design, individual characteristics, and workplace dynamics are not included
as part of the transfer of training system. Research is warranted to develop
a systemic transfer of training model that accurately reflects the dynamics
of the actual workplace settings.
Although research instruments measuring motivation to learn and moti-
vation to transfer have been established by previous researchers, the va-
lidity of the instrument specifically designed to measure MTIWL is yet to
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 195
be fully established. The only known validity test of MTIWL was conducted
by Naquin and Holton (2002), who found that the construct has initial con-
tent, criterion, and construct validity. It is unknown, however, whether such
validity of the research instrument can be achieved in differential research
settings. Hence, more studies on MTIWL are required to address the issue
by developing either new or by refining existing research instrument specifi-
cally to measure MTIWL construct.
Conclusion
This conceptual paper advocates the need to examine motivation in terms
of trainee motivation to improve work performance by means of learning in
the context of training programs. This is consistent with the view of many
influential scholars (e.g. Holton, 2005; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Naquin &
Holton, 2002) that advocate the critical value of motivation to enhance work
performance via learning. Based on the review of previous empirical work,
it is more than likely that MTIWL will emerge as an important mediator that
thoroughly explains the relationship between social support and the transfer
of training.
Although MTIWL has been conceptualized more than a decade ago, there
is a pressing lack of empirical studies that focus on this construct. As a
result, not many empirical findings that can lend full support of MTIWL as a
mediator that links the relationship between social support and the transfer
of training. Hence, more empirical work should be conducted via future
research. This can be performed by identifying possible antecedents and
outcomes of MTIWL. This paper intends to spur more research on MTIWL
that could significantly contribute to HRD theory building and practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.
References
Ascher, J. (2012). Transfer of training: A suggested course of action for local
authorities coping with acute financial distress and ongoing workforce cut
off; An Israeli case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Pécs, Hungary. Retrieved from http://ktk.pte.hu/sites/default/files/
mellekletek/2014/07/Jacques%20Ascher%20-%20disszertacio.pdf
Ayres, H. W. (2005). Factors related to motivation to learn and motivation
to transfer learning in a nursing population. (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from
http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/3773/1/etd.pdf
Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and
longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26(3), 201–213.
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
196 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions
for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Transfer of training 1988–
2008: An updated review and agenda for future research. In G. P. Hodgkin-
son & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology (pp. 41–70). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and func-
tioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Bates, R. A., Holton, E. F. III, Seyler, D. A., & Carvalho, M. A. (2000). The
role of interpersonal factors in the application of computer-based training
in an industrial setting. Human Resource Development International, 3(1),
19–43.
Battistelli, A. (2008). The influence of organizational context on training moti-
vation. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(1), 199–209.
Blume, B., Ford, J., Baldwin, T., & Huang, J. (2010). Transfer of training: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2008). A study of best practices in training
transfer and proposed model of transfer. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 19(2), 107–128.
Chen, Z., Eisenberger, R., Johnson, K. M., Sucharski, I. L., & Aselage, J.
(2009). Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance:
Which leads to which? Journal of Social Psychology, 149(1), 119–124.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Hampson, I. (2007). Transfer of training: A review and new
insights. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–15.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies
in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30(1), 102–118.
Chiaburu, D. S. (2010). The social context of training: Coworker, supervisor or
organizational support? Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 53–56.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Con-
ceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions,
attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5),
1082–1103.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Lindsay, D. R. (2008). Can do or will do? The importance
of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource
Development International, 11(2), 199–206.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. V. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? An
exploratory study of goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organiza-
tional supports. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2),
110–123.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Tekleab, A. G. (2005). Individual and contextual influences
on multiple dimension of training effectiveness. Journal of European In-
dustrial Training, 29(8), 604–626.
Chiaburu, D. S., Van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2010). Social support in
the workplace and training transfer: A longitudinal analysis. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 187–200.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 197
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative the-
ory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678–707.
Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. A. (2004). An examination of work-environment
support factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the work-
place. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 449–471.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Elangovan, A. R., & Karakowsky, L. (1999). The role of trainee and environ-
mental factors in transfer of training: An exploratory framework. Leader-
ship and Organization Development Journal, 20(5), 268–275.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J.
D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environ-
ment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of
Management, 21(1), 1–25.
Festner, D., & Gruber, H. (2008). Conditions of work environments in foster-
ing transfer of training. In S. Billet, C. Harteis, & A. Etelapelto (Eds.),
Emerging perspectives on learning through work (pp. 215–231). Rotter-
dam, Netherlands: Sense.
Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review
and analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 22–41.
Foxon, M. (1993). A process approach to the transfer of training. Part 1: The
impact of motivation and supervisor support on transfer maintenance.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 130–143.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really mat-
ters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Hawley, J., & Barnard, J. (2005). Work environment characteristics and the im-
plications for training transfer: A case study of the nuclear power industry.
Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 65–80.
Holton, E. F. III. (2005). Holton’s evaluation model: New evidence and con-
struct elaborations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 37–
54.
Holton, E. F. III., & Baldwin, T. T. (2003). Improving learning transfer in organi-
zations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R., & Ruona, W. E. (2000). Development of the gener-
alized Learning Transfer System Inventory. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 11(4), 333–360.
Hutchins, H. M. (2009). In the trainer’s voice: A study of training transfer
practices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(1), 69–93.
Ismail, A., Bongogoh, S., & Segaran, S. C. C. (2008). Motivation to learn
as a mediator of the relationship between supervisor support in training
programs, transfer of competency and job performance. Timisoara Journal
of Economics, 1(3), 257–270.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001). Factors affecting training effectiveness in the con-
text of the introduction of new technology: A US case study. International
Journal of Training and Development, 5(4), 248–260.
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
198 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2002). Predicting motivation to learn and motivation to
transfer learning back to the job in a service organization: A new sys-
temic model for training effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quar-
terly, 15(3), 114–129.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2004). Reconceptualizing the learning transfer concep-
tual framework: Empirical validation of a new systemic model. Interna-
tional Journal of Training and Development, 8(3), 210–221.
Lancester, S., Di Milia, L., & Cameron, R. (2013). Supervisor behaviours that
facilitate transfer of training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(1), 6–22.
Lee, C., Lee, H., Lee, J., & Park, J. (2014). A multiple group analysis of the
training transfer model: Exploring the differences between high and low
performers in a Korean insurance company. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(20), 2837–2857.
Lim, D. H. (2000). Training design factors influencing transfer of training to the
workplace within an international context. Journal of Vocational Education
and Training, 52(2), 243–258.
Lim, D. H., & Johnson, S. D. (2002). Trainee perceptions of factor that influ-
ence learning transfer. International Journal of Training and Development,
6(1), 36–48.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, L. M. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, in-
structional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning
and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 85–
115.
Machin, M. A., & Fogarty, G. J. (2004). Assessing the antecedents of trans-
fer intentions in a training context. International Journal of Training and
Development, 8(3), 222–236.
Merriam, S. B., & Leahy, B. (2005). Learning transfer: A review of the research
in adult education and training. Journal of Lifelong Learning, 14, 1–24.
Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. III. (2002). The effects of personality, affectivity,
and work commitment on motivation to improve work through learning.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), 357–376.
Nijman, D. J. J. M. (2004). Supporting transfer of training: Effects of the su-
pervisor. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente. Retrieved from
http://doc.utwente.nl/76049/1/thesis_D_Nijman.pdf
Nijman, D. J. J. M., Nijhof, W. J., Wognum, A. A. M., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2006).
Exploring differential effects of supervisor support on transfer of training.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(7), 529–549.
Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V., & Bereri, E. (2009). Trainee perceptions of training
transfer: An empirical analysis. Journal of European Industrial Training,
33(3), 255–270.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes on training effectiveness:
Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management
Review, 11(6), 736–749.
Pham, N. T. P., Segers, M. S. R., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2010). Understanding
training transfer effects from a motivational perspective: A test of MBA
programmes. Business Leadership Review, 7(3), 1–25.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Motivation to Improve Work through Learning 199
Pham, N. T. P., Segers, M. S. R., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2013). Effects of work en-
vironment on transfer of training: Empirical evidence from Master of Busi-
ness Administration programs in Vietnam. International Journal of Training
and Development, 17(1), 1–19.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A
review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
Saks, A. M. (2002). So what is a good transfer of training estimate? A reply
to Fitzpatrick. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(3), 29–30.
Saks, A. M., & Belcourt, M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and
transfer of training in organizations. Human Resource Management, 45(4),
629–648.
Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Leader influences of train-
ing effectiveness: Motivation and outcome expectation process. Interna-
tional Journal of Training and Development, 12(3), 158–170.
Seyler, D. L., Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A., Burnett, M. F., & Carvalho, M.
A. (1998). Factors affecting motivation to transfer training. International
Journal of Training and Development, 2(1), 2–16.
Subedi, B. S. (2004). Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning.
International Education Journal, 5(4), 591–599.
Switzer, K. C., Nagy, M. S., & Mullins, M. E. (2005). The influence of training
reputation, managerial support, and self-efficacy on pre-training motiva-
tion and perceived training transfer. Applied HRM Research, 10(1), 21–34.
Tucker, M. L., & McCarthy, A. M. (2001). Presentation self-efficacy: Increas-
ing communication skills through service-learning. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 13(2), 227–245.
Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Jansen, N. (2010). Transfer of training:
The role of feedback in supportive social networks. International Journal
of Training and Development, 14(2), 81–94.
Veeraya, P., & Sasi, N. (2011). Role of social exchange process and work-
related attitude on motivation to improve work through learning: An em-
pirical examination of private hospital in Thailand. Journal of International
Management Studies, 11(3), 96.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J. W., Lyons, B. D., & Kavanagh, M. J. (2007).
The effects of training design, individual characteristics and work environ-
ment on transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Develop-
ment, 11(4), 282–294.
Xiao, J. (1996). The relationship between organizational factors and the trans-
fer of training in the electronics industry in Shenzhen, China. Human Re-
source Development Quarterly, 7(1), 55–73.
Yamnill, S., & McLean, G. N. (2001). Theories supporting transfer of training.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), 195–208.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.
Kueh Hua Ng is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and
Human Development, Sarawak University of Malaysia (UNIMAS). Currently,
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014
200 Kueh Hua Ng and Rusli bin Ahmad
his research interest is in the area of training and development. He is the
correspondence author and can be contacted at ahua_101@yahoo.com
Dr Rusli Ahmad, Assoc. Prof., is a Dean at the Centre for Student Develop-
ment, Sarawak University of Malaysia (UNIMAS) and also an academic staff
of the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development, UNIMAS. He
graduated with a BA (Hon.) in Anthropology and Sociology from National Uni-
versity of Malaysia in 1987. He obtained his Master of Management from
Putra University of Malaysia in 1996 and later received his PhD from Univer-
sity of Bradford, UK. He is very much involved in the teaching, research,
publication, consultation, and service to society in his area of expertise.
arusli@ppp.unimas.my
This paper is published under the terms of the Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning