Strategic Alignment of Training, Transfer-Enhancing Behaviors, and Training Usage: A Posttraining Study Max U. Montesino This survey explored the alignment of an organization’s specific training program with its strategic direction and its practices to support usage of training on the job. The subjects, trainees and their immediate supervisors, were participants in a targeted sales training program of a Fortune 200 pharmaceutical company headquartered in the Midwest. This study found a low to moderate positive correlation between the perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization and the presence of practices to support usage of training. The group of trainees that selfreported very high usage of training perceived a significantly higher alignment of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization as compared to the group of trainees that self-reported low to high usage of training; field managers did not differ significantly in that regard. Trainees who self-reported very high usage of training also reported a significantly higher presence of practices to support usage of training throughout the program than the group of trainees that self-reported low to high usage of training; field managers did not differ significantly in that regard either. The study found a positive correlation between awareness of and commitment to the strategic direction of the organization.

Statement of the Problem As the high level of corporate investment in training and development activities each year indicates, it is clear that the field of HRD has experienced a dramatic growth in the past two decades. Several HRD scholars have explored the size of that investment in training (Anthony and Norton, 1991; Bassi and Van Buren, 1999; Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Broad and Newstrom, 1992;

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 13, no. 1, Spring 2002 Copyright © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

89

90

Montesino

McMurrer, Van Buren, and Woodwell, 2000). However, estimates suggest a low return on the investment in training overall. Baldwin and Ford (1988) estimated that no more than 10 percent of these expenditures typically result in transfer to the job. HRD professionals at the company where the current study took place were concerned about the issue of low return on training investment in their company, as are many researchers and practitioners in the field of HRD, and decided to study the phenomenon. One of the projects in that context was the survey whose results are presented here. Some scholars and practitioners believe that HRD professionals have emphasized much more state-of-the-art training delivery devices at the expense of the critical connection between training site and work environment that enhances transfer of training. This disconnection seems also to permeate the link between training and organizational strategy in many organizations. Practitioners in the training department where this survey was conducted wanted to explore these issues in a flagship sales training program the organization had been using for several years. The survey that this article was based on retrospectively explored the perception of key training constituencies (trainees and immediate supervisors) about the alignment of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization and its support for training usage. Trainees and immediate supervisors also estimated the training usage that took place after training. The support for training usage (as operationalized by concrete transferenhancing practices before, during, and after training) was one of the two foci of the current study. In a prior study, Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1995, p. 265) stated that “several factors are known, or suspected, to affect usage of training on the job. These factors are related to the individual learner, the training program, the environment in which the trainee works, and, most of all, the trainee’s immediate supervisor.” The influence of the immediate supervisor in encouraging or discouraging usage of training has been well documented in several studies (Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1995; Huczynski and Lewis, 1980; Michalak, 1981; Montesino, 1995; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanaugh, 1995; Werner, O’Leary-Kelly, Baldwin, and Wexley, 1994). For that reason, several scholars and practitioners (Brinkerhoff and Gill, 1994; Broad and Newstrom, 1992; Georgenson, 1982; Gradous, 1991; Michalak, 1981; Zemke and Gunkler, 1985) call for a more active role for the key training constituencies—trainers, trainees, and immediate supervisors—in bridging the gap between training and job performance by managing the transfer-of-training process (before, during, and after training), beyond the emphasis given thus far to the instructional design and delivery of training. Baldwin and Ford (1988) captured the essence of this issue in their proposed transfer-of-training model. Later, Broad and Newstrom (1992) proposed a series of specific steps that have the potential to enhance after-training usage. Gradous (1991) proposed a similar model. The current study adds empirical data in the tradition of these three models.

Strategic Alignment of Training

91

The second focus of this study was the connection of training with the strategic direction of the organization. According to Woolfe (1993), strategic alignment describes the state in which the goals and activities of the business are in harmony with the systems that support them. Two theoretical models of the connection between training and corporate strategy are proposed by Semler (2000) and Wognum (2000). Semler proposes a model of broader organizational alignment, made up of eight components: the environment, vision-valuepurposes, strategy, structure and systems, rewards, practices, behavior, and performance. Semler then developed a questionnaire to measure the degree of organizational alignment. In Semler’s model, training is just one of the components of the organizational alignment. On her part, Wognum (2000) proposes a model that looks at three HRD functions (policymaking, administration, and implementation) and three levels of organizational problems (strategic, tactical, and operational). Both Semler and Wognum tested their models empirically, conducting research in the United States and the Netherlands. The study reported here expands the literature on the measurement of the alignment of training with corporate strategy, from an empirical perspective. Few studies have explored quantitatively the critical link between training and corporate strategy, in spite of the growing concern about this issue in the HRD community. Among the studies that in some way address this issue are Carnevale, Gainer, and Villet (1990); Casner-Lotto and Associates (1988); Rosow and Zager (1988); and Training Strategies, Inc. (1992). More recent publications have shown a certain interest; for example, Lee (1996) focuses on the concepts of payback and pay-forward from training, Cianni and Bussard (1994) on the relationship between corporate strategy and the focus of management development programs, and Kalata (1999) on the relationship between business strategy and HRD in Fortune 500 companies. This interest is also evident in the diversity of papers presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Human Resource Development in recent years, dealing with several aspects of the connection between corporate strategy and training (including Conine, 1997; Conine and Criswell, 1998; Lynham, Provo, and Ruona, 1998; Montesino, 1997; Montesino, 2000; Semler, 1998, 2000; Wognum, 2000; Wognum and Bosker, 1998). The current study expands our knowledge of that connection by adding more pieces to the growing body of literature in this area. The review of the literature for the study conducted by Training Strategies, Inc. (1992), found two organizational scenarios emerging as recurrent themes in the connection of training and corporate strategy. They are (1) the organization that integrates training into the strategic business planning and implementation processes and (2) the organization that marginally inserts the training function into these processes. These two scenarios, amply described in Montesino (1997), can exist within a single organization. Using direct quotations from different sources, the study by Training Strategies, Inc. (1992), describes scenario 1 in these terms: the corporate mission and HRD mission are identical. HRD plans are constructed in the same

92

Montesino

context and by the same process as the business plan and are viewed in direct relationship to it. In this type of organization, trainers create rather than follow policy. Leadership from the CEO provides tremendous leverage for integrating training with strategic goals. The HRD director sits at the strategic planning table and is an active participant in formulating corporate strategies, directly influencing strategic decisions from the outset. From the involvement of the HRD director, training plan drivers are derived. These training plan drivers act as links with business activities. They guide both the focus of training and the needs analysis process, and they establish parameters to evaluate the value added from training and the return on investment. In scenario 1, each training activity connects, through a strategic map, to the strategic business goals. Scenario 2 shows less developed links between training and corporate strategy. The Training Strategies, Inc., study (1992) described it in these terms: in scenario 2, a small, select group of top officers formulates corporate strategy. It then transmits the strategy to lower levels in the organization in diminishing communication that reduces the trainer’s ability to translate strategy into training needs. The training plan and the business plan do not seem to stem from the same process. They are viewed in isolation and usually are short in duration and schedule-driven. The result is that the training plan remains exclusively at the operational level, without reaching strategic status. HRD staff act as observers of the strategic planning process, without involvement in key decisions. HRD acts as a consulting entity and receives strategic clues indirectly, usually at the implementation stage—too late to affect these decisions. Little attention has been given to the topic of the two main foci of this study, the practices to support usage of training and the alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, considered together. Explorations of these two issues usually include best-practice accounts, case studies, and anecdotal accounts, but they seldom approach them quantitatively, as does this study. The variables included in this study were (a) the perceived presence of practices to support usage of training, (b) the perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, (c) the awareness of the strategic direction of the organization, (d) the commitment to the strategic direction of the organization, and (e) the self-reported usage of training.

Research Questions and Hypotheses The purpose of the current study was to answer the following research questions: • Did trainees and their immediate supervisors engage in transfer-enhancing practices (before, during, and after training), depending upon their perception of the alignment of the training program with the strategic goal of the organization?

Strategic Alignment of Training

93

• Were awareness of and commitment to the strategic direction of the organization among the subjects in any way related? Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are derived from the first research question. They addressed the main concern of this study. Hypothesis 4 is derived from the second research question. It addressed the relationship between awareness of and commitment to the strategic direction of the organization to test, in the specific case of the training program studied here, what other researchers have suggested in other organizational settings. The researcher decided that a correlational study and comparison of means provided the appropriate statistical design for testing the hypotheses advanced. Therefore, four statistical models were used: two parametric (Pearson productmoment correlation coefficient and t-test for independent means) and two nonparametric (Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient and Mann-Whitney U Test). The Statistical Package for Social Science (Norusis, 1990b) was used for the statistical analysis. The four null hypotheses advanced were the following: HYPOTHESIS 1. There is no statistically significant relationship between the perceived presence of practices to support usage of training and the perceptions of trainees and managers of the alignment of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization. That is, the correlation coefficient would be negative or equal to zero. HYPOTHESIS 2. There is no statistically significant relationship between the variable “self-reported usage of training” and the variable “perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization.” That is, there would be no difference in the mean (or mean rank) between the subjects who reported low to high usage of training and those who reported very high usage of training. HYPOTHESIS 3. There is no statistically significant relationship between the variable “self-reported usage of training” and the variable “perceived presence of practices to support usage of training.” That is, there would not be a significant mean difference between the two groups. HYPOTHESIS 4. There is no statistically significant relationship between “awareness of the strategic direction of the organization” and “commitment to the strategic direction of the organization.” The correlation coefficient would be negative or equal to zero.

Methodology Survey research methodology was employed in this study. The population for the study consisted of 250 sales representatives who had participated in a targeted sales training program from January 1992 to December 1993 and the field managers who supervised these sales representatives. The training program

94

Montesino

itself was, therefore, the substantive focus of the research; the participants constituted the accessible population. The training program was a multifaceted program with classroom instruction, field experience, readings, and classroom meetings, all coordinated by the training department at headquarters. The targeted sample size, determined by using Krejcie and Morgan’s approach (1970), was 152 participants. Krejcie and Morgan’s formula establishes the required sample size as a function of X2NP(1  P)d2(N  1)  X2P(1  P). In this formula, X2 represents the table value of chi-square for one degree of freedom at the desired confidence level (3.841); N is the population size; P is the population proportion (assumed to be .50 because this would provide the maximum sample size); and d is the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (.05). Because Krejcie and Morgan’s table is applicable to any defined population, the researcher entered the table at N = 250 to obtain the required sample size. The sample size representative of the trainees in this population size was 152. A pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted prior to the administration of the survey. Its validity was established by an expert panel using the quantitative technique developed by Biner (1993). The reliability was established through the use of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). The composite indexes that quantitatively defined variables a, b, c, and d obtained standardized alpha reliability coefficients of 0.88, 0.71, 0.88, and 0.96, respectively. Lack of space in this article precludes the author from displaying the tables of each index value, frequency, percentage, and measure of variability. Since the internal consistency for this self-reported instrument is considered adequate (based on the Cronbach alpha coefficients already mentioned), the reliability of the measures for the variables was sufficiently established. Two versions of the same questionnaire were used to collect data from both the sales representatives who participated in the program and their field managers. The subjects did not have knowledge of any of the questions prior to receiving the questionnaire. The survey was a retrospective look at how much was done to encourage training usage and the connection of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization. The questionnaire was mailed by the company using its internal mailing system to the 180 accessible trainees working in the United States and to their respective fifty field managers. The subjects were told that filling out the questionnaire was optional and were assured that their anonymity would be protected. To ensure anonymity, no name or code was attached to the cover letter or questionnaire. To increase the response rate, a second mailing was sent to each person who received the first one. The researcher received 147 completed questionnaires from trainees and 36 from field managers. The company where the study was conducted is a Fortune 200 pharmaceutical firm headquartered in the Midwest with operations worldwide. The researcher and the company have agreed to omit its name from this article.

Strategic Alignment of Training

95

The researcher came into contact with the company after the training program was over, as part of the efforts at evaluating the training program. Although the data collection was concluded in 1995, the author agreed with the company not to publish the results of the study within the five years following its conclusion.

The Variables and Measurements As mentioned, the variables investigated were (a) perceived presence of practices to support usage of training, (b) perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, (c) awareness of the strategic direction of the organization, (d) commitment to the strategic direction of the organization, and (e) self-reported usage of training. Two versions of the same questionnaire were used to collect data from participants in the training program and their respective district managers. Variables a, b, c, and d were operationalized by building four composite indexes with several questionnaire items (explained in the paragraphs following). These four indexes became interval-level variables for the purpose of data analysis. Variable e consisted of a single-scaled question in the “Participants” and “Field Managers” versions of the survey. The index for variable a, perceived presence of practices to support usage of training, consisted of a list of well-supported research-and-best-practicebased syntheses of forty-one transfer-enhancing practices that were singled out from the literature review and suggested by the work of field experts. The researcher used the works of Baldwin and Ford (1988), Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1993), Broad and Newstrom (1992), Georgenson (1982), Gradous (1991), Huczynski and Lewis (1980), Michalak (1981), Zemke and Gunkler (1985), and others to derive the list of these transfer-enhancing practices before, during, and after training by trainers, trainees, and immediate supervisors. The subjects were asked to identify retrospectively the extent to which each practice took place before, during, and after the training program in which they participated, on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 meant “not at all” and 4 meant “a great deal.” The scale was devised from 1 to 4 to avoid the central tendency and to try to counteract the potential for response set. The questionnaire included three parts related to the practices to enhance transfer in each of the training phases (before, during, and after training). Each phase consisted of a series of practices that, if implemented by trainers (sixteen practices), trainees (thirteen practices), and immediate supervisors (twelve practices), would eventually help after-training usage (as suggested in the studies already mentioned). This composite index showed an alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) of 0.88. The index for variable b, perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, was built with five questions in the survey, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal). The scale was from 1 to 4 to

96

Montesino

avoid the central tendency and to try to counteract the potential for response set. This index showed an alpha coefficient of 0.71. The five questions were the following: (1) How much do you know about the strategic direction [business goals] of the company? (2) How well defined is that strategic direction? (3) To what extent is the training program in which you [or your employee] participated aligned with the strategic direction of the company? (4) To what extent do you agree that the strategic direction of your company is the right one? (5) To what extent are you committed to that strategic direction? As the questionnaire was being developed, it became evident that the researcher needed to ask about respondents’ knowledge of, agreement with, and commitment to the strategic direction of the organization in order for the index to make sense. The question that addressed the commitment of the subjects to the strategic direction of the organization was also included in the index that defined variable d. Variables c and d were defined by two survey questions each. The index for variable c, awareness of the strategic direction of the organization, included the following two survey questions: (1) How much do you know about the strategic direction of the company? (2) How comfortable are you with your current knowledge of the strategic direction of the company? This index showed an alpha coefficient of 0.88. The index for variable d, commitment to the strategic direction of the organization, was built with the following two survey questions: (1) To what extent do you agree that the strategic direction of your company is the right one? (2) To what extent are you committed to that strategic direction? This composite index showed an alpha coefficient of 0.96. Variable e, self-reported usage of training, consisted of a scaled question used in Brinkerhoff and Montesino’s 1993 study. The subjects reported their estimations of the usage of training that took place after the completion of the training program. For the trainees, the question was this: How much have you actually used what you learned in the course? For the field managers, the question was this: On the average, how much do you think your employee(s) have actually used in the field what they learned in the course? Again, the scale was from 1 (nothing at all) to 4 (a lot) to avoid central tendency and to try to counteract the possibility of response set. The data from this question were used as a categorical variable to test hypotheses 2 and 3. Details of the data analysis are provided in the section devoted to hypothesis testing.

Descriptive Data on Selected Survey Items Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 show descriptive data from selected survey items. These tables provide information that will help the reader understand what the inferential analysis found. The discussion of this descriptive data is included in the last section of this article, Discussion of the Findings.

Strategic Alignment of Training

97

Table 1. Selected Survey Items as Reported by Trainees Survey Question How much do you know about the strategic direction of the company? How well defined is that strategic direction? To what extent is the training program aligned with the strategic direction of the company? To what extent do you agree that the strategic direction of your company is the right one? To what extent are you committed to that strategic direction? How well is the strategic direction of the company communicated to you? How comfortable are you with your current knowledge of the strategic direction of the company?

Valid Cases

M

SD

Percent Low (1  2)

Percent High (3  4)

147

2.94

0.61

19.0

81.0

147

2.91

0.73

25.9

74.1

146

2.77

0.76

34.9

65.1

147

3.29

0.65

8.1

91.9

147

3.63

0.56

2.7

97.3

147

2.89

0.74

29.2

70.8

147

2.91

0.62

19.7

80.3

Table 2. Selected Survey Items as Reported by Field Managers Survey Question How much do you know about the strategic direction of the company? How well defined is that strategic direction? To what extent is the training program aligned with the strategic direction of the company? To what extent do you agree that the strategic direction of your company is the right one? To what extent are you committed to that strategic direction? How well is the strategic direction of the company communicated to you? How comfortable are you with your current knowledge of the strategic direction of the company?

Valid Cases

M

SD

Percent Low (1  2)

Percent High (3  4)

36

3.08

0.69

19.4

80.6

36

2.80

0.66

33.3

66.7

35

2.74

0.61

34.3

65.7

36

3.33

0.67

11.1

88.9

36

3.66

0.53

2.8

97.2

36

2.80

0.71

36.1

63.9

36

2.91

0.64

25.0

75.0

98

Montesino Table 3. Trainees’ Reasons for Attending Training

Reason

No. of Individuals

Percent

92

62.8

31

21.8

19

13.4

I attended the training program for my individual professional development. I attended the course because I wanted to contribute to the attainment of the company’s strategic goal. I attended the course because I was requested to do so.

Table 4. Field Managers’ Reasons for Sending Employees to Training Reason I sent my employee(s) to the course for their individual professional development. I sent my employee(s) because I wanted to contribute to the attainment of the company’s strategic goal. I sent my employee(s) because I was requested to do so.

No. of Individuals

Percent

23

65.7

8

22.9

4

11.4

Hypothesis Testing To test null hypothesis 1, the researcher computed a one-tailed Spearman rankorder correlation coefficient (Healey, 1990) for trainees’ data and a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Kachigan, 1986) for field managers, both at 0.05 level. The rationale for using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient with data from trainees was that index a, perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, from the trainees’ data seemed to depart significantly from normality. The index showed a skewness of 1.05. Given that level of departure from normality, the researcher considered that instead of the parametric Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, its counterpart, the nonparametric Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient, would yield a stronger comparison and stronger conclusions (the nonparametric Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient does not require assumption of normality and equality of variance in the sample data). In the case of field managers’ data, the two indexes did not show significant departure from normality (skewness of 0.55 and 0.36, respectively). Table 5 shows the results of the two correlation coefficients for trainees’ and field managers’ data. For trainees, the one-tailed significance was .001. According to Norusis (1990a), the probability that a correlation coefficient of at least 0.29 being obtained when there is no linear association in the population between the two variables is less than 0.001. Therefore, the null hypoth-

Strategic Alignment of Training

99

Table 5. Correlation Coefficient between the Variables “Perceived Presence of Practices to Support Usage of Training” and “Perceived Alignment of Training with the Strategic Direction of the Organization” as Reported by Trainees and Field Managers Sample Trainees Field managers

Valid Cases

Value

One-Tailed Significance

144 30

.29 (Spearman rs) .38 (Pearson r)

.001 .03

esis was rejected, and support for the hypothesis was found. This test also revealed that this is a low positive relationship. In the case of field managers, a one-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient at 0.05 level was computed to test hypothesis 1. The assumptions of the Pearson r were satisfied: (1) independent groups, (2) random sample, and (3) a skewness of 0.55 and 0.36 for the two indices showing little departure from normality in the distribution of the variables. The one-tailed significance was 0.03. The null hypothesis of no relationship was rejected too. This test also revealed that this is a moderate positive relationship. Null hypothesis 2 was tested through two two-tailed Mann-Whitney U tests (Popham and Sirotnik, 1992) at 0.05 level. The index of variable b, perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, was used as the interval level variable. The two recoded groups (low to high and very high) of self-reported users of training were used as the categorical variable. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test does not require any assumption of normality and equality of variance from the sample data to be computed (as its parametric counterpart t-test for independent means would require). Once the scores were ranked and the corrections for ties were taken into account, the basic requirements for the test were fulfilled. Initially, the researcher intended to use two groups (low  1  2; high  3  4) from the participants’ self-reported usage of training. But, because some of these two categories (low and high) had very small numbers of responses, the data were recoded to form two different groups (low to high  1  2  3; very high  4), resulting in a larger number of responses in each group and in similar results for the purpose of analysis. The rationale for this recoding was to make sure that each category (low to high; very high) had a large enough number of observations in each group to result in meaningful inferential tests. The specific inferential techniques used to test hypotheses 2 and 3 (t-test for independent means and Mann-Whitney U test) simply cannot be computed with small numbers of subjects per group. Because the scale from 1 to 4 implied a progression in terms of training usage, the regrouping did not remove any valuable information for the purpose of the analysis wanted. By the same token, the regrouping allowed the use of the inferential tests mentioned.

100

Montesino

Table 6 shows the results of the Mann-Whitney U test for trainees. The results of this test support the hypothesis that there is a relationship between variable e, self-reported usage of training, and variable b, perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization, as reported by trainees. Table 7 shows the results of the Mann-Whitney U test for null hypothesis 2 in regard to field managers. To establish the significance of the difference between the mean ranks of the two groups, the two-tailed probability provided by the test (0.24) was found to be higher than the previously established alpha level of 0.05. The results of this test indicated that the difference observed in the mean ranks of the two groups is not significant. The difference could be due to factors other than perceived alignment of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization, or it could be due to chance alone. To test null hypothesis 3, a t-test for independent means (Glass and Hopkins, 1984) at 0.05 level was performed for trainees and a Mann-Whitney U test for field managers. The response to the question “How much have you used what you learned in the training program?” was recoded to form two groups (low to high  1  2  3; very high  4). The index of variable a, perceived presence of practices to support usage of training, was used as the interval level variable. The assumptions of the t-test were satisfied. Table 8 shows the results of this test for trainees; these results allowed the researcher to reject the null hypothesis. Table 6. Comparison of the Groups of Trainees That Reported Low to High and Very High Usage of the Training Program in the Mean-Rank “Perceived Alignment of Training with the Strategic Direction of the Organization” Scores Group Low to high Very high

Cases

Mean Rank

U Value

z Value

Two-Tailed Probability

77 69

63.23 84.96

1866.0

3.1374

.001

Table 7. Comparison of the Groups of Field Managers That Reported Low to High and Very High Usage of the Training Program in the Mean-Rank “Perceived Alignment of Training with the Strategic Direction of the Organization” Scores Group Low to high Very high

Cases

Mean Rank

U Value

z Value

Two-Tailed Probability

25 9

16.32 20.78

83.0

1.1615

0.24

Strategic Alignment of Training

101

In the case of field managers, a Mann-Whitney U test was computed to test null hypothesis 3. Table 9 shows that the two-tailed probability was 0.85. To establish the significance of the difference between the mean ranks of the two groups, the two-tailed probability provided by the test (0.85) was higher than the previously established alpha level of 0.05. The results of this test indicate that the difference observed in the mean ranks of the two groups is not significant. Consequently, the researcher concluded that the results of this test do not provide evidence of the relationship hypothesized for field managers. Null hypothesis 4 was tested with a one-tailed Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient for trainees’ data and a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for field managers, both at 0.05 level. The trainees’ version of null hypothesis 4 was tested through the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient because the index of variable d, commitment to the strategic direction of the organization, was too skewed (1.29) to be handled with a parametric technique. The field managers’ version, on the contrary, did not depart significantly from normality in both indices and was tested through Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Table 10 shows the results of the two correlation coefficients for trainees’ and field managers’ data. Based on these results, the researcher decided to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship. This test also revealed that this is a low positive relationship regarding trainees and moderate positive relationship regarding field managers.

Table 8. Comparison of the Groups of Trainees That Reported Low to High and Very High Usage of the Training Program in the Mean “Perceived Presence of Practices to Support Usage of Training” Scores Group

Cases

Two-Tailed F

t Value

Two-Tailed Probability

76 69

0.56

3.99

.000

Low to high Very high

Table 9. Comparison of the Groups of Field Managers That Reported Low to High and Very High Usage of the Training Program in the Mean-Rank “Perceived Presence of Practices to Support Usage of Training” Scores Group Low to high Very high

Cases

Mean Rank

U Value

z Value

21 9

15.69 15.06

90.5

0.1819

Two-Tailed Probability 0.85

102

Montesino

Table 10. Correlation Coefficient between the Variables “Awareness of the Strategic Direction of the Organization” and “Commitment to the Strategic Direction of the Organization” as Reported by Trainees and Field Managers Sample Trainees Field managers

Valid Cases

Value

One-Tailed Significance

147 36

.26 (Spearman rs) .63 (Pearson r)

.001 .001

Discussion of the Findings Most of the hypothesis testing in this investigation confirmed the trends suggested in several theoretical propositions advanced by HRD scholars and practitioners, best-practice accounts, and empirical findings of the few previous studies in the area. The results of this survey have important implications for the specific training program that was the substantive focus of the survey. It also has implications for the organization at which the study was conducted, because the company implements many similar training programs in the United States and abroad. Some implications for the field of HRD can also be derived from this modest study, mostly because its findings add a quantitative picture of the relationships hypothesized, adding specific empirical evidence needed in the field of HRD to expand the literature in this rarely investigated area. A low to moderate positive correlation between the perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization and the presence of practices to support usage of training was found for both trainees and managers in the direction hypothesized. Although the correlation was from low to moderate, it suggests the possibility that the trainees and their immediate supervisors actually engaged in more or fewer transfer-enhancing behaviors (before, during, and after training), as they perceived the training program as being either in line with or disconnected from the organization’s strategic direction. This is the most relevant finding of this survey. It suggests that in subsequent training programs, the company needs to pay close attention to linking its training programs with the corporate’s strategic direction in a way that is explicit, clearly communicated, and evident to the trainees and their respective managers from the outset. Further study of this relationship can add to the modest positive correlation found in this survey. The finding of a correlation between perceived alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization and the presence of practices to support usage of training was further explored when the author compared the two groups of trainees in terms of self-reported training usage. The group of trainees that self-reported very high usage of training perceived a significantly higher alignment of the training program with the strategic direction of the

Strategic Alignment of Training

103

organization than did the group of trainees that self-reported low to high usage of training. Field managers did not differ significantly in this variable. This finding suggests that apparently those trainees who saw more clearly the connection of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization were able to apply on the job the skills they learned in the training program in greater proportion than were the trainees who did not see that connection clearly. This is a very relevant finding in the field of training and development. It suggests that HRD professionals should look at the strategic link of training as a means to encourage the application of skills learned in training. Further studies in this area will help to clarify the way in which that strategic link can enhance transfer of training. The variables studied here are related in many ways. For example, the trainees who self-reported very high usage of training reported a significantly higher presence of practices to support usage of training throughout the training program than did the trainees who self-reported low to high usage of training. Field managers did not differ significantly in this variable either. This suggests that the models proposed by Baldwin and Ford (1988), Broad and Newstrom (1992), and Gradous (1991) make not only theoretical sense but, in the specific case of the training program investigated, practical sense. The three models for enhancing transfer of training developed by these scholars proposed that key training constituencies (managers, trainees, and trainers) must actively engage in managing the transfer-of-training process by building strong partnerships before, during, and after training to enhance skill application. Although the study reported here did not test their models in any way, it supports their general propositions. An issue seldom investigated in the field of HRD is the connection between awareness of and commitment to the strategic direction in a given work organization. Scholars in the field of organizational behavior have documented their connection in many organizational settings. As the author expected, a positive correlation was found between awareness of and commitment to the strategic direction of the organization among the subjects in this survey. This finding reveals that those trainees and their managers who self-reported higher awareness of the strategic direction of the organization also reported stronger commitment to that strategic direction than did those trainees and managers who reported lower levels of awareness. Furthermore, descriptive data revealed that 91.9 percent of trainees and 88.9 percent of field managers agreed with the corporate strategy, and the majority of trainees and field managers (97.3 percent and 97.2 percent, respectively) expressed high commitment to that strategy. This is a tendency suggested by researchers in the field of organizational behavior that has received little attention in the field of HRD. Having data available to explore this relationship, the author decided to test his directional hypothesis. The positive correlation found adds more evidence of their relationship, this time coming from an HRD perspective.

104

Montesino

Part of the inferential tests and descriptive data from selected survey items also suggest important trends, useful to the organization where the study was conducted and to HRD practitioners in general. For instance, the rejection of the field managers’ version of hypotheses 2 and 3 prompted the author to speculate that some field managers received a low level of exposure to the content taught in the training program in which their employees participated. Among the many reasons that might explain this lack of exposure are (1) that field managers did not participate in designing the training program from the outset, (2) that they were not well informed about the content by the training planners and instructors, (3) that they did not seek to be informed, (4) that they did not participate in evaluating the training program, (5) that they did not have ways to know whether their employees were using the skills learned in training, etc. Any of these probable explanations suggest a disconnection between trainers and managers that is not useful to encourage the application of skills learned in training once the trainees go back to their respective field posts. The literature on enhancing the transfer of training suggests that managers should be made aware of training content in order for them to support training usage on the job (Broad and Newstrom, 1992; Brinkerhoff and Gill, 1994; Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1995; Mager, 1999). The company could benefit from using this information to actively engage managers and supervisors in determining employees’ training needs, deriving skills to be taught, and designing and evaluating the training programs in partnership with those planning and implementing the programs. Although the focus of this survey was not to investigate the process through which the strategic direction of the organization was defined and communicated downward, some descriptive data stress the need for the organization to make more efforts at familiarizing employees with the corporate strategic direction. Tables 1 and 2 show that 19 percent of the trainees and 19.4 percent of the managers reported knowing little about the strategic direction of the company. One-quarter (25.9 percent) of the trainees and one-third (33.3 percent) of the field managers said that this strategic direction was not well defined, according to what they self-reported. Top management could use this descriptive data to evaluate the process of defining and communicating strategy in a way that could benefit the organization a great deal. HRD professionals in general can benefit from assessing the connection of their training programs with corporate strategy by surveying training constituencies as in the case described here and by making that type of assessment part of their ongoing training evaluation efforts. The alignment of training with corporate strategy seems to deserve more attention from HRD professionals at the organization where the study was conducted, according to some descriptive data from this survey. For example, one of the survey items asked the respondents to rank in order of importance their reasons for attending the sales training program. Tables 3 and 4 show that only 21.8 percent of the trainees and 22.9 percent of the field managers thought of

Strategic Alignment of Training

105

the training program as a deliberate act to contribute to the attainment of the company’s strategic goals. By the same token, the majority of them (62.8 percent of trainees and 65.7 percent of the field managers) thought of it primarily as an individual professional development activity; additionally, 13.4 percent of the trainees and 11.4 percent of the managers said that they either attended the training program or sent their employees because they were requested to do so by their immediate supervisors. The literature suggests that the best scenario is the one in which the training program gives equal attention to both expected job and career utility for the individual and organizational goals (Clark, 1992). HRD practitioners in general seem to benefit from mapping out the clear connection of each training activity with the strategic direction of the organization. The level of employee exposure to the strategic arena was another important issue that emerged from the descriptive analysis of several survey questions. As Tables 1 and 2 show, 36.1 percent of the field managers and 29.2 percent of the trainees in this study believed that the strategic direction of the company was not well communicated to them. By the same token, 25 percent of the managers and 19.7 percent of the trainees reported they did not feel comfortable with their current knowledge of that strategy. The literature suggests that in some organizational scenarios, corporate strategy is transmitted to lower levels in diminishing communication that reduces the trainer’s ability to translate strategy into training needs (Rosow and Zager, 1988). The explicit discomfort regarding their current knowledge of the corporate strategy reported by one-quarter of the field managers raises a systemwide question related to the process by which the organization defines corporate strategy and communicates it to employees. Uncovering the causes of that disconnection is beyond the scope of this study but offers a great opportunity for future research. In summary, despite the moderate correlation coefficients the researcher found, a significant portion of the subjects in this study reported more usage of training on the job and engaging in more transfer-enhancing behaviors as they saw more alignment of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization. This study confirmed the findings and suggestions of several scholars (Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1993; Broad and Newstrom, 1992; Gradous, 1991; Huczynski and Lewis, 1980; Michalak, 1981; Werner, O’Leary-Kelly, Baldwin, and Wexley, 1994) who stressed the need for building partnerships among trainers, trainees, and managers to support training usage. As expected, the subjects of this study expressed more commitment to the strategic direction of the company as they reported being more informed about it. Furthermore, the subjects expressed high agreement with the company goals, in spite of the gaps they reported in the way these goals were communicated to them. These findings point to the suggestion that a more conscious effort should be made to inform employees about the company’s strategic direction, as a way of eliciting understanding and support for the strategy.

106

Montesino

Finally, this study demonstrates that the issues of alignment of organizational strategy and training can be studied quantitatively and that some conclusions can be drawn using the survey method.

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research Because of the limited generalizability of this study beyond the organization where it was conducted, the author highly recommends further research in different training settings and incorporating several other variables. This study was limited to the target population within the organization where it was conducted (sales representatives who participated in the training program and their respective field managers, in a Fortune 200 pharmaceutical company headquartered in the Midwest). Although the researcher was able to generalize from the sample to the population studied, the findings of this study refer to the participants in that specific training program, not necessarily to all corporations in this industry or others. This survey was conducted in a real-life training program, under the constraints imposed by the company that generously allowed the researcher to conduct the study. The author is grateful to the organization for that opportunity. Several issues affected the researcher’s ability to control elements of the study. For instance, its reliance on perceptions of respondents is an important limitation. Trainees and their managers were asked to remember the extent to which some practices to support usage of training were used in the training program they went through and to express their perceptions of the connection of the training program with the strategic direction of the organization. To avoid the central tendency and to try to counteract the potential for response set, the scales used throughout the questionnaire ranged from 1 to 4. Another aspect that the researcher overlooked was the length of employment of the respondents, which could have affected their understanding and knowledge of the corporate strategy. The researcher did not have access to data regarding other organizational activities that might have interfered with or reinforced the use of the skills that employees learned in the training program. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, the author highly recommends further research in different training settings. Any follow-up research should address several issues to overcome the limitations of the present study. Researchers should (1) make every effort to include trainers’ perspectives on the variables studied here, (2) make every effort to reach customers in order to validate the use of the content taught in the training program, (3) closely follow up with a group of trainees to document successful cases of skill application, and (4) collect data on the impact of the training program on business results.

Strategic Alignment of Training

107

References Anthony, P., & Norton, L. A. (1991). Link HR to corporate strategy. Personnel Journal, 7 (4), 75–86. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 43, 63–105. Bassi, L. J., & Van Buren, M. E. (1999). The 1999 ASTD state of the industry report. Training and Development Journal, 53 (1), 1–27. Biner, P. M. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure student attitudes toward televised courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (1), 62–73. Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Gill, S. J. (1994). The learning alliance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Montesino, M. U. (1993, October 14–16). Adult learning in a corporate setting: Impact of line management support interventions on transfer of training. Paper presented at the 1993 fall symposium of the Project for the Study of Adult Learning, Illinois State University, Schaumburg, IL. Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Montesino, M. U. (1995). Partnerships for training transfer: Lessons from a corporate study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (3), 263–274. Broad, M. L., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure payoff from training investments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Carnevale, A., Gainer, L., & Villet, J. (1990). Training in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Casner-Lotto, J., & Associates (1988). Successful training strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cianni, M., & Bussard, D. (1994). CEO’s beliefs, management development, and corporate strategy: An exploratory study. Group & Organizational Management, 19 (1), 51–56. Clark, R. E. (1992). New techniques for effective training management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 16 (6), 3–6. Conine, C. T. (1997, March). The integration of human resource development into the strategic planning process: A comparative case study of three corporations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Atlanta, GA. Conine, C. T., & Criswell, B. P. (1998, March). The GEICO challenge session: A model for integrating human resource development and strategic planning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Chicago, IL. Cosgrove, G., & Speed, R. (1995). What’s wrong with corporate training? Training, 32 (1), 53–58. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 16 (3), 297–334. Georgenson, D. L. (1982). The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training and Development Journal, 36 (10), 75–78. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gradous, B. D. (1991). The development and validation of a transfer-of-training system. St. Paul: University of Minnesota. Healey, J. F. (1990). Statistics: A tool for social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Huczynski, A. A., & Lewis, J. W. (1980). An empirical study into the learning transfer process in management training. Journal of Management Studies, 17 (3), 227–240. Kachigan, S. K. (1986). Statistical analysis: An introduction to univariate and multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press. Kalata, E. D. (1999). The relationship between business strategy and human resource development in Fortune 500 companies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610. Lee, Richard. (1996). The “pay-forward” view of training. People Management, 2 (3), 30–32. Lynham, S. A., Provo, J., & Ruona, W.E.A. (1998, March). The role of scenarios in business strategy and human resource development. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Chicago, IL.

108

Montesino

Mager, R. E. (1999). What every manager should know about training. Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance. McMurrer, D. P., Van Buren, M. E., & Woodwell, W. H. (2000). The ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Michalak, D. F. (1981). The neglected half of training. Training and Development Journal, 35 (5), 22–28. Montesino, M. U. (1995). A study of support for transfer and the alignment of training with the strategic direction of the organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. Montesino, M. U. (1997, March). The alignment of corporate strategy and training: A survey of trainees and managers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Atlanta, GA. Montesino, M. U. (2000, March). Speculating about the connection of management development and organizational goals: A post-data collection interpretation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Raleigh-Durham, NC. Norusis, M. J. (1990a). SPSS introductory statistics student guide. Chicago: SPSS. Norusis, M. J. (1990b). SPSS/PC  statistics 4.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT and PS/2. Chicago: SPSS. Popham, J. W., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). Understanding statistics in education. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers. Rosow, J., & Zager, R. (1988). Training: The competitive edge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4 (4), 377–390. Semler, S. W. (1998, March). Strategic alignment and performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Chicago, IL. Semler, S. W. (2000, March). Exploring alignment: A comparative case study of alignment in two organizations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Raleigh-Durham, NC. Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanaugh, M. J. (1995). Applying training skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (2), 239–252. Training Strategies, Inc. (1992). Linking training to corporate strategy. Kalamazoo, MI: Author. Werner, J. M., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Baldwin, T. T., & Wexley, K. N. (1994). Augmenting behavior modeling training: Testing the effects of pre- and post-training interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5 (2), 169–183. Wognum, I.A.M. (2000, March). Vertical integration of HRD policy within companies. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, RaleighDurham, NC. Wognum, I.A.M., & Bosker, R. J. (1998, March). Strategic HRD and HRD effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Chicago, IL. Woolfe, R. (1993). The path to strategic alignment. Information-Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, 9 (2), 13–23. Zemke, R., & Gunkler, J. (1985). 28 techniques for transforming training into performance. Training, 22 (4), 48–63.

Max U. Montesino is assistant professor of organizational leadership and supervision at Indiana University–Purdue University, Fort Wayne.