Human Resource Development International, 2014

Vol. 17, No. 3, 277–296, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.907975

Evaluation of transfer of training in a sample of union and

management participants: a comparison of two self-management
techniques
Travor C. Brown* and Amy M. Warren

Faculty of Business, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL A1B 3X5, Canada
(Received 13 November 2013; accepted 4 February 2014)

We examined transfer from a training intervention in a management-development

programme that focused on general management skills. Our sample included union
(n = 57) and non-union (n = 119) leaders. Transfer was evaluated using multi-source
feedback and surveys. A quasi-experiment was also conducted where one group was
trained to develop self-management contracts that included longer term (i.e., distal)
goals while the second group was trained to develop self-management contracts where
they broke their longer term goals into shorter term (i.e., proximal plus distal) goals.
The overall training programme increased self-efficacy and transfer. No significant
differences were found between the two self-management conditions on any key
measures.
Keywords: transfer; self-management; goals; union; management development

Management and leadership development is a core area of Human Resource Development

(HRD) practice and scholarship. The American Society for Training and Development’s
annual report has consistently shown that organizations invest heavily in supervisory and
management training (Industry Report 2006, 2009; Miller 2012). The most recent annual
survey revealed that managerial and supervisory training was the most heavily invested
training content area (Miller 2012). Similarly, over 50% of senior human resources
executives responding to a survey stated that developing the next generation of corporate
leaders will be one of the three greatest challenges over the next 10 years – up almost 20%
from the previous year (SHRM 2012).
The ongoing focus on this training area may be attributed to current demographics. A
demographic challenge facing many organizations is an aging workforce, with a large
number of employees in managerial and leadership positions who are about to retire and
few qualified employees ready to replace them (Aging workforce 2013; Taylor 2004).
This demographic challenge cuts across sectors of the economy, including education
(d’Arbon, Duignan, and Duncan 2002), government (Lewis and Cho 2011), health
(Sherman, Chiang-Hanisko, and Koszalinski 2013), manufacturing (Wosczyna-Birch
and Prewo 2004) and trade unions (Cocklin 2013). Moreover, it appears that the challenge
is international as evidenced by research from: Australia (McMurray et al. 2012), the
United Kingdom (Phillips 2007) and the United States (Wolff, Wageman, and Fontaine
2009). While many of these authors have focused on the need to develop managerial

*Corresponding author. Email: travorb@mun.ca

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

278 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

leaders, the same need exists within the labour movement (Hebdon and Brown 2012;
Mackey, Warren, and Kelloway 2012).
Unfortunately, the mere investment in managerial training may not be sufficient.
Scholars have historically criticized the training literature, including management-skills
development, for lacking theoretical foundation and systematic evaluation (Latham 1988).
Importantly, for our context Kirkpatrick’s (1976) training-evaluation model includes the
criterion of behaviour, or to the extent that trainees apply the skills from training on the
job. There have been historic concerns regarding the limited evidence that skills learned in
training are used, or transferred, back to the job (Baldwin and Ford 1988).
Our primary purpose was to evaluate transfer from a training intervention in a
management-development programme involving management and union trainees. Our
secondary purpose was to assess the effectiveness of the two forms of self-management
on transfer, one where participants set long-term distal goals, and the second where
participants used both longer term distal goals and shorter term, or proximal, goals.
More details on these interventions follow after our literature review.

Literature review
Transfer of training: the theoretical model
In a seminal article, Baldwin and Ford (1988, 64) defined ‘positive’ transfer ‘as the degree
to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training
context to the job’. In essence, transfer is a behavioural measure of training evaluation
(Saks and Haccoun 2007) and ‘arguably the most important of all training effectiveness
criteria’ (Saks and Haccoun 2004, 268).
Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) model is perhaps the most heavily cited work in the
transfer literature (Blume et al. 2010). That model defined two conditions of transfer:
(1) maintenance, or the maintenance of material learned in training over time; and (2)
generalization, or the generalization of material from the training environment to the
workplace context. This model noted the training input of trainee characteristics, such as
the trainee’s motivation and ability, as a prerequisite for learning and transfer.

Transfer and social cognitive theory

Self-efficacy represents ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses
of action required to produce given attainments’ (Bandura 1997, 3). Self-efficacy is
important to HRD as over 20 years of research has shown that it correlates positively
with post-training performance (Gist 1989; Saks 1995). Self-efficacy-based training
techniques, such as behaviour modelling have been shown to have a positive impact on
transfer (Taylor, Russ-Eft, and Chan 2005). Colquitt, LePine, and Noe (2000), in a meta-
analysis, found that self-efficacy is a predictor of transfer. In fact, scholars have argued
that the effectiveness of a training intervention is dependent upon the extent to which it
increases efficacy (Saks and Haccoun 2007), and others have concluded that it is among a
few variables to have a ‘strong or moderate relationship with transfer’ (Burke and
Hutchins 2007, 271). Thus, while self-efficacy was not named in Baldwin and Ford
(1988)’s model, we assert on the basis of the literature, that it is a trainee characteristic
that facilitates transfer. As such, we measure it in this study.
 Human Resource Development International 279

Transfer and goal setting

Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) model includes motivation as a trainee characteristic that
bolsters transfer. Goal setting is a motivational theory (Locke and Latham 1990). The
motivational effects of goals are well documented, with goal setting considered among the
most effective and practical theories of workplace motivation (Latham and Pinder 2005).
Goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham 1990) complements social-cognitive theory as
both state that self-efficacy can improve performance. Goal-setting theory further states
that people who set (and commit to) specific, difficult goals outperform those who set
vague goals (e.g., do-your-best). Over 1000 studies support goal-setting theory (Latham
and Locke 2006).
Gist and colleagues (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta
1991) used self-management interventions, which included goal setting, in two transfer
studies. They found that self-management training (e.g., developing a self-contract that
contained goals, self-coaching of progress relative to the contract and allocating rewards/
punishments based on contract progress) resulted in superior transfer than goal setting
alone. Limitations of these works include that transfer was evaluated very shortly after
training using simulated tasks. Thus, we cannot determine whether trainees transferred
skills from one setting to another. This is particularly troublesome in the context of the
present study, namely, a management-training programme delivered at a university-based
executive education centre. In fact, the inability to show ‘transference of knowledge back
to the job’ (Crotty and Soule 1997, 7) is a historic limitation of many executive-devel-
opment programmes.
Additional studies confirm the effectiveness of self-management training interven-
tions. Yet, a close reading of these studies (e.g., Frayne and Geringer 2000; Frayne and
Latham 1987; Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta 1991;
Richman-Hirsch 2001) suggests that all used proximal plus distal goals. That is, partici-
pants broke their longer term, or distal, goals into shorter term, or proximal, goals. While
this fact may not appear important, recent evidence suggests otherwise. Scholars (Brown
and McCracken 2010; Locke and Latham 2002; Seijts and Latham 2005) have concluded
that different goals are more effective for different contexts. Specifically, they have
concluded that distal goals (i.e., setting a longer term goal to obtain a specific quantity
or quality target) can decrease performance and self-efficacy when people are learning
new skills. They advocate that an antidote for this negative distal goal–performance effect
involves breaking the longer term goal (i.e., a distal goal) into shorter term goals (i.e.,
proximal plus distal goals).
In laboratory studies, researchers found positive effects for proximal plus distal goals
on performance and/or self-efficacy (Latham and Seijts 1999; Seijts and Latham 2001).
Brown (2005) found positive effects for these goals on transfer. In that study, managers
who had set proximal plus distal goals had increased transfer, 6 weeks post-training, than
trainees who only set distal goals. There was no difference in the self-efficacy levels of the
two goal groups. A limitation of that work was the exclusive use of survey data. As such,
the extent that goals resulted in increased transfer to the workplace was not tested. This is
important given that ‘more rigorous testing of actual behavior’ including from the
perspectives of peers or supervisors is a void in the training (Cheng and Ho 2001, 111)
and executive education (Conger and Xin 2000) literature.
In a follow-up study, Brown and Warren (2009) found that public-sector employees
who set proximal plus distal goals had higher transfer (i.e., maintenance) than those who
set distal goals or those urged to do-their-best. Contrary to expectations, trainees who set
280 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

distal goals had the highest self-efficacy. A limitation of that study was the low survey
response rate.
Given the current literature, we see a potential disconnect in the HRD field. While
HRD scholars acknowledge the importance of goals in self-management (Saks and
Haccoun 2007; Wexley and Latham 2002), they do not specify that proximal plus distal
goals are to be used. Yet the majority of goal-setting studies have examined distal
outcome (i.e., longer term, quantity or quality target) goals (Brown and McCracken
2010; Locke and Latham 1990, 2002). With the prevalence of distal outcome goal
usage, it is possible that HRD practitioners use distal goals in their self-management
interventions when the effectiveness of these goals in such interventions is untested.
Moreover, researchers (Gist and Stevens 1997) have shown that the type of goal may
impact the effectiveness of self-management training. Hence, in this study, we examine
the effectiveness of self-management training using distal goals only versus proximal plus
distal goals on transfer.

HRD evaluation
Holton (1996) considered the heavy reliance on the Kirkpatrick (1976) model for HRD
intervention evaluation a major issue in the field. In particular, he criticized researchers for
over-relying on this model to determine the effectiveness of a training intervention,
because the failure of the intervention may have little to do with the intervention itself
and more to do with ‘moderating variables’ (Holton 1996, 37). He proposed an adapted
model that included consideration for external factors that may dampen training effec-
tiveness. Unfortunately, as noted by Holton (2005), ways to measure these constructs are
limited and the model has therefore largely been left untested in recent studies.
Other ways researchers have tried to establish the effectiveness of training pro-
grammes include the use of meta-analysis. In particular, Collins and Holton (2004)
conducted a meta-analysis on more than 80 training intervention studies surrounding
leadership development. Their analysis revealed a great disparity in the success of leader-
ship-development programmes. Of particular interest to the current study were the find-
ings that ‘learning outcomes remain a primary focus of leadership development
programs…[and] posttest only with control knowledge objective outcomes measured
primarily by knowledge tests are highly effective’ (Collins and Holton 2004, 236).

Goal setting in unionized firms

As previously noted, self-management includes goal setting. Frayne and Latham (1987)
found that unionized employees trained in self-management increased their attendance
rates. While this study is over 25-years old, it is unique given the limited examination of
self-management, or goal setting, involving unionized participants. Brown and Warren’s
(2010) review concluded that the goal-setting literature has rarely examined the unionized
context. In one of the few goal-setting studies involving unionized workers, Latham and
Saari (1982) found that drivers who set specific difficult goals outperformed those urged
to do their best. As noted by Latham and Saari (1982), the union’s acceptance of the
programme was key to the success of the goal-setting intervention.
Brown and Latham (2000) studied the effectiveness of goals set by unionized employ-
ees using Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS; Latham and Wexley 1977). Similarly to
Latham and Saari (1982), they found that unionized workers who set goals had higher
performance than those urged to do their best. Once again, the union representing the
 Human Resource Development International 281

workers wanted involvement in the process, voluntary participation of its members, and
an agreement that performance appraisal results would be solely used for developmental
purposes.
The inclusion of unionized participants in our study is important given the aforemen-
tioned void of goal-setting studies involving unionized employees. In this study, the union
was supportive of the training and the union executive advocated for the inclusion of
union leaders. For reasons we discuss later in the paper, we assert that managers and union
leaders perform many of the same skills. Thus, we did not expect to see a difference
between the effectiveness of the self-management interventions on the basis of role (i.e.,
manager versus union leader).

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Participants trained in self-management have higher self-efficacy post-
training relative to pre-training.
Hypothesis 2: Participants who include proximal plus distal goals in their self-manage-
ment contracts have higher self-efficacy than those who only set distal goals in their self-
management contracts.
Hypothesis 3: Participants who set proximal plus distal goals in their self-management
contracts have higher transfer, assessed through survey measures of generalization and
maintenance, over those who only set distal goals in their self-management contracts.
Hypothesis 4: Participants trained in self-management have higher transfer generalization
post-training, as assessed by comparing pre- and post-training self-BOS ratings.
Hypothesis 5: Participants who set proximal plus distal goals in their self-management
contracts will have higher transfer generalization, as assessed by self- and peer-BOS
ratings, relative to those who only set distal goals in their self-management contracts.

Method
Design
Our design was consistent with the procedures outlined in the seminal quasi-experimental
book by Cook and Campbell (1979). Specifically, ten training groups were randomly
assigned to two experimental conditions [e.g., self-management with: (1) distal goals only
or (2) proximal plus distal goals], with five training groups in each self-management
condition. While more details concerning the goals are included in the ‘Procedure’
section, a brief summary follows. Distal goals were longer term goals while proximal
plus distal goals involved breaking the longer term goal into shorter term, or benchmark,
goals. By assigning training groups, and not trainees, to conditions, the design meets
Cook and Campbell’s definition of a quasi-experimental design.
We used a quasi-experimental design for two reasons. First, the employer did not
want an entire supervisory team in a single training session as there would be no one
left to supervise the workplace. Similarly, the union did not wish to have all peer union
leaders (e.g., all shop stewards of a work group) away concurrently. This meant that
trainees could not be randomly assigned to training groups. Second, we feared that a
true experimental design could result in contamination (where people in one goal group
set ‘the wrong’ goal) and general confusion among trainees. This is because random
assignment of individuals would have resulted in people in the same training group,
282 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

and the same training room, setting two different types of goals in their self-manage-
ment contracts. To reduce potential confounds in our design, we incorporated several
controls: the same instructors for each topic, identical content, consistent order of
content delivery and equivalent timeframes between modules. We felt that these con-
trols and the quasi-experimental design used were preferable, and most practical, given
the setting.
Given that the organization hired the executive education centre to train all people
who attended, and given the wealth of research previously cited confirming the effec-
tiveness of goals versus a control group that does not set goals (see reviews in Locke
and Latham [1990, 2002]), we did not believe it was practical to have an untrained
control group or a control group that did not set goals. Note that the decision to
exclude a control group is consistent with goal-setting and self-management interven-
tions in other transfer studies (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens 1990; Gist, Stevens, and
Bavetta 1991).

Sample
The sample was all 176 people who took part in a three-module management-skills
programme custom developed for a North American utility company. Of the 176 trainees,
119 were supervisors/managers and 57 were union leaders. The average age and tenure of
participants was 49.12 (SD = 6.69) and 21.00 (SD = 8.17) years, respectively. Consistent
with evidence that less than 25% of employees in Canadian utility companies are women
(Catalyst 2013), our sample was predominantly male (93.2%).
It is important to note that the training programme focused on general manage-
ment skills. These management skills were assessed using BOS (Latham and Wexley
1977). In brief, BOS represent a behavioural-based performance assessment in which
a rater assesses the frequency that a person performs key behaviours using a 5-point
scale. More details on the BOS used in this study are reported in the ‘Procedure’
section.
In our context, the participants, both union and non-union, were referred to as leaders.
In a union, these leadership roles may be referred to as shop steward, executive member,
grievance officer, etc. (Gunderson and Taras 2009). Given the Canadian context, the role
of these union leaders included: advocating for the rights of employees, having the
exclusive right to bargain terms and conditions of employment for employees, represent-
ing unionized employees in the event of workplace disputes and managing the union
organization which must be separate from employer’s organization in Canada (Hebdon
and Brown 2012). Clearly then unions, like all organizations, require people to manage
them. While the union participants in this study would not identify themselves as
‘managers’, the functions they perform in their union roles (e.g., managing the organiza-
tion, resources, tasks and in some cases staff) would require them to use many of the same
general management skills as their management co-participants. We, therefore, use the
word leaders for both types of participants in this study and refer to the programme as one
designed to develop management skills.
The employer and the union in this study saw the value in having both management
and union representatives participate in this management-skills programme and asked that
both groups attend the same sessions. This too emphasizes the similar skills needed for
both union and non-union participants in our context.
 Human Resource Development International 283

Measures
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was measured twice: (1) pre-training, prior to any skills training in module
one; and (2) post-training, prior to the receipt of BOS feedback in module three. In
developing our self-efficacy measure, we sought guidance from the literature. Bandura
(1997) stated that self-efficacy scales should measure a person’s belief in their ability to
perform specific performance levels on a 10 response point scale. In HRD research, self-
efficacy has often assessed a trainees’ confidence, on a 10-point scale (1 = no confidence
to 10 = total confidence), that they could perform skills learned in training (Brown and
Warren 2009; Gaudine and Saks 2004; Morin and Latham 2000). In our study, we used
the self-efficacy composite scale methodology of Lee and Bobko (1994). Specifically,
participants were asked if they felt confident (yes/no) that they could perform the 18 BOS
skills derived from the needs analysis well as their confidence on a 10-point scale (1 = no
confidence, 10 = total confidence) that they could perform each skill. The decision to use
the behavioural items used in the assessment of transfer as the basis for the self-efficacy
items is consistent with past HRD research (Brown and Warren 2009; Gaudine and Saks
2004). A total self-efficacy composite score was then calculated by summing each of the
scores on the 10-point scale when the trainee answered ‘yes’ they were confident they
could perform that skill. This summated scale was used for all analyses.

Transfer
We assessed both maintenance and generalization components of transfer. Both were
measured post-training, prior to the trainees’ receipt of their feedback report in module
three. Maintenance was assessed in terms of trainees’ recall of training content using two
multiple-choice questions. A sample question included: ‘According to the FIROB survey,
a person who likes to take a lead role in a project team would be high on: (a) Need for
inclusion, (b) Need for control, (c) Need for charge, (d) Need for affection’ (Answer b).
We assessed generalization in two ways. The first was a four-item, survey-based
measure called generalization survey. Specifically, trainees self-assessed (on a scale of
1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Frequently) the extent to which they used specific information
from the programme (e.g., Learning Styles Inventory [LSI], Interpersonal Relationship
Orientation Behaviours [FIROB], etc.) back at work. This generalization measure and the
maintenance measure were adapted slightly from past transfer research to better match the
training content of this study (Brown 2005; Brown and Warren 2009).
The second generalization measure was called generalization workplace; it was based
on self and peer ratings of the 18 BOS items. The overuse of self-report measures is
problematic in transfer studies (Russ-Eft, Dickison, and Levine 2010). The inclusion of
these peer-BOS assessments ensured that we did not rely solely on self-report, survey
measures of transfer.

Manipulation checks
Our goal-setting manipulation checks included goal specificity, difficulty and commitment
because all three are the requirements for effective goal setting (Locke and Latham 1990).
In goal-setting research, the participants often complete self-administered surveys asses-
sing goal commitment, specificity and difficulty (see review in Locke and Latham
[1990]). Thus, all three manipulation checks were based on self-assessments using a 5-
284 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Consistent with past studies,
we assessed commitment (using the five-item scale of Klein et al. [2001]) immediately
after participants set goals and prior to measuring task, or transfer, performance (Latham
and Seijts 1999; Morin and Latham 2000). Goal specificity and difficulty were adapted
from a study involving unionized participants (Brown and Latham 2000) and were
assessed using one question each. Consistent with past research, both were assessed
post task performance (Brown and Latham 2000; Brown and Warren 2009), specifically,
on the post-training survey.

Procedure
Following the guidance of Hannum, Martineau, and Reinelt (2007), we involved the key
stakeholders throughout the process, designed evaluation criteria and processes prior to
implementing the programme, discussed the purpose of the evaluation with all stake-
holders prior to evaluation and used multiple evaluation measures. In order to facilitate
reader comprehension, in the next section we overview the procedure in largely chron-
ological order.

Development of BOS
A steering committee comprised of HRD professionals from the utility, the staff of a
university-based executive-development centre, and the programme faculty conducted a
needs assessment. The needs assessment process consisted of detailed discussions over
several meetings until the committee determined the skills that should be developed (and
assessed) during the training programme. These skills mirrored the behavioural items of
BOS developed by Brown and Warren (2009). We thus used that BOS in the current
study. In total, the BOS contained 18 behavioural items, each assessed on a 5-point Likert
type scale (1 = Almost Never, 5 = Almost Always). Sample items included: ‘treats others’
with respect’, ‘listens to others’ viewpoints’ and ‘mediates conflict’. These BOS informed
the training design and our assessment of transfer generalization.

Overview of training programme and content

The content of the programme was determined by the previously described steering
committee. All participants received 6.5 days of class time prior to the assessment of
transfer and post-training measures. The core programme consisted of three modules. In
module one (2.5 days), participants reviewed the recent changes in their organization,
completed several self-assessments to better understand their learning and interpersonal
styles and learned motivation techniques. The experimental design took place in this first
module.
Approximately, 2-months later, participants attended module two. Over that 4-day
module, they learned skills related to selection, coaching (e.g., feedback and development
of employees) and team processes. Approximately, 6 weeks post module two, they took
part in a final module where they spent a half-day reviewing a personalized feedback
report. In that half-day session, they also mapped out the next steps for their ongoing
development.
In the next section, we discuss module one in more detail given that pre-training
surveys and experimental conditions took place during that module. With the exception of
the goal condition assigned in module one, all participants, regardless of self-management
 Human Resource Development International 285

condition, experienced the identical three-module programme delivered by the same

instructors.

Module one and time 1 data collection

In the first half-day of module one: (1) an executive of the utility overviewed organiza-
tional changes, (2) staff of the executive-development centre presented the programme
and (3) participants completed pre-training surveys. In this half-day session, and prior to
any data collection, both the evaluation criteria and purposes were explained. Specifically,
participants were informed that they would be asked to complete a pre-training survey, a
post-module two survey and they would receive a BOS-based, multi-source feedback
report on the last day of the programme (e.g., in module three). They were informed that
participation in all assessments and surveys was voluntary.
Participants were informed that: (a) all BOS would be summarized into an individual
feedback report listing average scores per behavioural item; (b) all summary feedback
reports would be returned solely to the rater; (c) neither the organization nor the union
would have access to BOS or feedback reports; and (d) participants could select their peer
raters. First and foremost the organization wanted their employees to receive training to
fulfil the skill gaps outlined in the needs assessment. To better ensure that participants
would be open to the training from the onset, there was no consequence for participants
for positive or negative feedback and no pre-training peer ratings were used. Participants
were, however, encouraged to discuss the outcomes of the feedback with their supervisor.
After this discussion, and prior to the teaching of any skills, participants were given
the 18-item BOS. They then completed a pre-training survey assessing their self-efficacy
that they could perform these same 18 BOS items, a self-assessment of their current usage
of these 18 items, as well as demographics (e.g., age, sex, role and tenure).
The following day, trainees completed self-assessments concerning FIROB (CPP
2004) and LSI(version 3.1) (Kolb 2005). At that time, trainees discussed how their scores
on these instruments reflected their workplace interactions. Self-management interven-
tions occurred immediately after this activity.
In terms of the instruments used, FIROB was originally created by Schultz (1958) to
understand performance in military teams, while LSI was designed by Kolb (1976) to
understand how people learn in educational settings. Both are now widely used in
management training and education as evidenced by the large firms that sell these
instruments to trainers and educators (Haygroup 2014; Psychometrics 2014). These two
self-assessments were chosen as the steering committee recognized the need for partici-
pants to better understand themselves in order to further develop their workplace effec-
tiveness. This view is consistent with authors of management-skills textbooks who
emphasize self-awareness as an element of effective management skills (Whetten and
Cameron 2011). For more details on the psychometric properties of FIROB and LSI, we
refer the reader to Hammer and Schnell (2000) and Kolb and Kolb (2005), respectively.

Experimental design and self-management training

After completing FIROB and LSI self-assessments, participants were trained in the self-
management technique of Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990); Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta
(1991). Specifically, the training involved developing a self-contract that contained goals,
self-coaching of progress relative to the contract and allocating rewards on goal progress.
Thus, the self-contract is in essence a detailed goal-setting procedure rather than a
286 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

personal-development plan as it is at the micro level and focused on specific goals related
to the training programme.
Ten training groups, not trainees, were assigned to experimental conditions. Once in
experimental conditions, participants spent approximately 45 minutes developing perso-
nal, self-management contracts. The only difference between the self-management
conditions was that some participants were trained to set distal goals while others were
trained to set proximal plus distal goals.
Participants (n = 87) in distal goal group developed self-contracts containing distal
goals for their usage of management skills in 3-months’ time. For example, ‘I will sit
down with each member of my group and provide them feedback within three months
time.’
Participants (n = 89) in the proximal plus distal goal group created a self-contact
containing distal goals (e.g., goals for 3-months’ time) and then broke these 3-month goals
into shorter term (or proximal goals) for 1, 2 and 3-months’ time. For example, ‘I will
provide feedback to 1/3 of my group in 1 month, another 1/3 in 2 months and the last 1/3
in 3 months time so that each person has feedback within three months’.
Participants in both goal conditions were free to set their own goals and were
encouraged to set goals that reflected their role (e.g., union versus management).
Similar to Latham and Brown (2006) and Stevens and Gist (1997), the trainer circulated
among trainees and discussed their goals with them in an effort to ensure that the ‘correct’
goals were set in each condition.

Time 2 (post-training) data collection

Approximately 6 weeks after module two (e.g., about 3.5 months after the start of the
programme), participants were asked to complete the post-training survey and have 4–5
workplace peers (not training peers) complete BOS forms. To guide the participants
regarding the choice of peer raters, we defined peers per Latham and Wexley (1994),
who founded the BOS procedure. Specifically, we defined a peer as: a co-worker; a
member of one’s work unit; or an employee not in one’s work unit, at the same level of
the organizational hierarchy, who interacted with the trainee on a regular basis. Consistent
with past research involving peer-BOS ratings for unionized workers (Brown and Latham
2000), and the wishes of the organization, all trainees selected the workplace peers who
completed BOS. These workplace peer raters received a memo from the research team
that guaranteed the anonymity of all BOS data, explained that only aggregate results (e.g.,
averages) would be summarized for the participant and discussed the need for candid and
honest responses. All surveys and BOS were returned directly to the researchers.
In the third training module, we provided summarized, multi-source feedback reports
to participants. This summary report included: pre-training self-BOS ratings, averaged
peer-BOS ratings (post-module two) and post-module two self-BOS ratings.

Results
Scale creation and intercorrelations
On Table 1, we report the reliability coefficients and the intercorrelations between key
measures. All scales but goal commitment (α =.59) were reliable. Removing items did not
increase the scale’s reliability coefficient to the desired .70 level. This was surprising
given that: (1) past meta-analytic and confirmatory factor analyses have confirmed the
Table 1. Intercorrelations.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pre-training self-efficacy .93

Pre-training self-BOS rating .71** .91
Post-training self-efficacy .42** .37** .96
Post-training self-BOS rating .37** .47** .62** .91
Peer-BOS rating .03 .09 .10 .13 .95
Goal commitment .15+ .23** .07 .27** .04 .59
Maintenance .06 .02 −.11 −.05 .11 −.04
Generalization survey .14 .27** .37** .54** .17+ .25* .01 .78

Notes: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, when appropriate, are reported along the diagonal.
+Correlation is significant at the .10.
*Correlation is significant at the .05.
**Correlation is significant at the .01.
Human Resource Development International
287
288 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

superiority of this five-item goal commitment scale versus other goal commitment
measures (Klein et al. 2001); and (2) researchers, in transfer and experimental studies,
have found this scale to be reliable (Brown 2005; Seijts et al. 2004; Winters and Latham
1996). Given the low reliability, we conducted a factor analysis. All five items loaded on a
single factor with values greater than .5, and an Eigen value of 1.92. Given the factor
analysis results, and the solid psychometrics of this five-item scale in past research, we
used the full five-item scale in all analyses.
As shown on Table 1, consistent with goal-setting theory, there were positive correlations
between: (a) pre-training efficacy and performance (both self-BOS ratings); and (b) goal
commitment and performance (post-training self-BOS rating and generalization survey).

Manipulation and condition checks

Manipulation checks are used to ensure that the experimental manipulations, in our case
goal-setting interventions, were effective (Cook and Campbell 1979). A review of the
means of our checks suggests that the goal-setting interventions were effective as parti-
cipants set (and committed to) specific, difficult goals. Participants were committed to the
goals set in their self-contracts (M = 20.98, SD = 2.58, maximum score = 25) and
perceived their goals to be moderately difficult (M = 3.29, SD =.81, maximum score = 5)
and specific (M = 3.85, SD =.56, maximum score = 5). We tested for any differences in all
goal-setting manipulation checks based on union versus managerial status using one way
ANOVAs. No significant differences were found (goal commitment: F1, 164 = 3.17, p >
.05, partial eta2 (ηp2) =.00; goal specificity: F1, 105 = 3.03, p > .05, ηp2 = .00; goal
difficulty: F1, 105 = 1.55, p > .05, ηp2 = .00).
We also tested whether participants in the two self-management groups differed on
manipulation checks or demographic variables. ANOVA found no differences between the
two self-management conditions on goal specificity or difficulty measures (F1, 105 = 1.72,
p > .05, ηp2 = .02; F1, 105 =.27, p > .05, ηp2 = .00). Goal commitment was higher in the
distal goal group (F1, 164 = 4.04, p < .05, ηp2 = .03). Chi-square analyses found no
differences between the two self-management groups in terms of role (management/union;
χ2 = 2.78, p > .05) or sex (χ2 = .00, p > .05), nor did ANOVA detect differences between
these groups in terms of service (F1, 169 = 2.35, p > .05, ηp2 =.01) or age (F1, 169 = 2.67,
p > .05, ηηp2 = .02). Thus, it appears that the two experimental groups (while not
randomized) were equivalent.

Non-response checks
We received 110 (62.5%) post-training surveys and peer BOS forms for 153 (86.9%) of
participants. ANOVA found no difference in the pre-training measures (e.g., goal commit-
ment, age, service, self-BOS ratings or self-efficacy) of participants who did (or did not)
complete the post-training survey or those for whom we did (or did not) receive peer BOS
(all p > .05). Similarly, chi-square analyses failed to detect differences between partici-
pants who did (or did not) complete the post-training survey, or those for whom we did (or
did not) receive peer BOS forms, in terms of role (management/union), sex or self-
management condition (all p > .05). Thus, we found no evidence of systematic non-
response bias.
 Human Resource Development International 289

Table 2. Key variables: means and standard deviations by self-management condition.

Variable Condition Mean Std. Deviation

Pre-training Proximal plus distal 127.23 21.54

Self-efficacy Distal 130.29 20.49
Pre-training Proximal plus distal 66.22 7.93
Self-BOS rating Distal 68.47 8.92
Post-training Proximal plus distal 140.21 20.19
Self-efficacy Distal 141.91 18.44
Post-training Proximal plus distal 71.31 8.05
Self-BOS rating Distal 71.00 7.99
Peer-BOS ratings Proximal plus distal 72.62 6.72
Distal 71.34 5.66
Maintenance Proximal plus distal 1.80 .41
Distal 1.72 .50
Generalization (Survey) Proximal plus distal 11.52 3.11
Distal 11.59 2.48
Generalization (Frequency) Proximal plus distal 3.90 1.31
Distal 4.02 1.12

Key measures and hypotheses

The means and standard deviations of the key measures, by study condition, are reported
in Table 2. We conducted one-way ANOVAs on all measures reported in Table 2. We only
found one significant difference between the scores of union versus management partici-
pants on any transfer of self-efficacy measures; non-union participants had lower main-
tenance scores (M = 1.61, SD =.50, versus 1.81, SD =.43; F1, 100 = 4.21, p < .05,
ηp2 = .04).

Self-efficacy
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, paired t-tests found that participants, all of whom were
trained in self-management, had higher self-efficacy post-training (t106 = 4.90, p < .001)
relative to pre-training. This suggests that the self-management training, regardless of the
goal set, improved self-efficacy concerning management skills. Neither ANOVA of the
pre-training self-efficacy measure (F1,169 = .91, p > .05, ηp2 = .01), nor ANCOVA of the
post-training self-efficacy measure using the pre-training self-efficacy score as the covari-
ate (F1, 103 = .00, p > .05, ηp2 = .00), detected significant differences between the two self-
management conditions. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Transfer
Recall that we utilized two self-administered, survey-based transfer measures: mainte-
nance and generalization survey. Given that the maintenance measures were akin to a
multiple-choice, quiz where participants had to select what they felt were the ‘correct’
answers, a research assistant, who was blind to study conditions, hypotheses and assign-
ment of individuals to conditions, independently ‘scored’ these survey measures and
entered them into the data set. As shown in Table 1, the generalization-survey measure
correlated significantly with several study measures including self-efficacy, BOS ratings
(self) and goal commitment. The grand means indicate that maintenance was high
290 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

(M = 1.75, SD = .45, maximum score = 2), and generalization survey was moderate
(M = 11.56, SD = 2.78, maximum score = 20). Contrary to Hypothesis 3, ANOVAs failed
to detect significant differences on the survey-based maintenance (F1, 100 = .77, p > .05,
ηp2 = .01) and generalization (F1, 100 = .02, p > .05, ηp2 = .00) measures of transfer
between the two self-management conditions.
Generalization was also assessed using self (assessed pre- and post-training) and peer
(assessed post-training only) BOS ratings. As multiple peer assessors were used, the
extent to which peer raters agreed was assessed using Rwg (James, Demaree, and Wolf
1993) and was found to be acceptable. The three BOS measures were reliable (all α > .90).
A paired t-test revealed that post-training self-BOS ratings were higher than pre-training
self-BOS ratings (t109 = 4.19, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. A review of
the post-training peer- and self-BOS ratings means presented in Table 2 revealed that the
means were at, or very near, 72 (maximum score = 90), further suggesting evidence of
transfer. Neither ANOVA of the pre-training self-BOS ratings (F1, 171 = 3.07, p > .05,
ηp2 =.02) nor ANCOVA of the post-training self-BOS ratings, using the pre-training self-
BOS ratings as the covariate (F1,106 = .54, p > .05, ηp2 = .01), found any significant
differences by self-management condition. Similarly, ANOVA of the peer ratings did not
reveal any differences between participants who used proximal plus distal versus distal
goals only in their self-management contracts (F1, 151 = 1.64, p > .05, ηp2 =. 01). Thus,
there was no support for Hypothesis 5.

Discussion
The implications of this study for HRD practitioners and scholars follow. We previously
highlighted how HRD practitioners face an unclear path. We noted a disconnect with one
literature highlighting both the need for and prevalence of management-skills training
given the current demographic trends and a second literature showing challenges related
to transfer of such skills. Our paper shows that a well-designed management-skills
programme, which included a multi-stakeholder needs assessment, partnership with a
large organization and training housed in an executive-education centre, does result in
transfer as evidenced by increases in self-efficacy and skills usage (based on self-BOS
ratings) when accompanied by a self-management intervention. HRD professionals can
now use the self-management techniques and assessment vehicles presented in this paper
in their own practice.
We also see how self-management can be used in a sample of union and non-union
leaders to facilitate transfer. These findings reinforce the previously noted effectiveness of
self-management, and highlight its effectiveness for transfer. Moreover, it does so using a
sample of union leaders, a group rarely examined in the HRD literature when many HRD
practitioners work in unionized contexts.
Turning to goal setting, our findings differ from studies where proximal plus distal
goals were shown to improve performance, self-efficacy or transfer relative to distal goals
alone (Brown 2005; Latham and Seijts 1999; Seijts and Latham 2001). Perhaps this is due
to the fact that this study used these goals in conjunction with self-management. The
results suggest that self-management with either distal goals or proximal plus distal goals
are effective transfer interventions as they increased efficacy and transfer (based on BOS
self-ratings). Thus, it appears that HRD practitioners can use self-management with either
goal type to improve transfer.
The study also confirms that union leaders use many of the same management skills,
and thus need the same proficiency in such skills, as their management counterparts. Not
 Human Resource Development International 291

only did the union desire participation in the management-skills programme, but the self
and peer-BOS ratings revealed high usage of these skills for management and union
leaders. Moreover, usage of these skills did not differ between these two groups as
evidenced by the self- and peer-BOS scores. In fact, the only difference between the
union and non-union participants was on the maintenance component of transfer. We
believe that this difference should be interpreted with some caution given the two-item
maintenance measure used. Overall, the results suggest that HRD practitioners should
consider including union leaders in management-skills training they offer.
Thus, the study provides insights for unionized workplaces seeking to develop
management skills in their leaders. Our experience in the programme, combined with
information shared with us by participants, suggests that the involvement of union and
management leaders in the same training sessions was beneficial in both skills and
relationship development. Several trainees commented that this joint involvement gave
them an increased understanding of the needs (and challenges) of their unionized counter-
parts (and vice versa). We believe that HRD practitioners would be well-advised to
encourage their organizations to use such joint union–management training sessions as
a way to build a positive labour-relations culture.
The implications of this study for scholarship follow. First, the paper presents a
systematic evaluation of a development programme at a time when such studies are
lacking in the literature and the need for management skills is growing. Moreover, we
did so using a design that answered the call of scholars (Cheng and Ho 2001; Conger and
Xin 2000) to go beyond self-assessments by including peer ratings to assess the effec-
tiveness of training. Given the budgets devoted to the management-skills training, and
concerns regarding transfer from such programmes, we believe that this paper helps to fill
an important void in the literature.
Second, this is the first study to examine a management-skills programme designed
for union and management leaders of the same firm. This research gap is problematic as
many organizations in the industrial world are unionized. For example, the Organization
for Economic Cooperative Development (OECD 2010) reported that, in 2007, union-
ization rates were in the 10% range for the United States; the 20% range for Germany,
Australia and the Netherlands; the 30% range for Canada, the United Kingdom and
Ireland; and the 50% range for Norway and Belgium. Moreover, unions are also faced
with a crisis in leadership given the current demographic trends (Hebdon and Brown
2012; Mackey, Warren, and Kelloway 2012). Thus, we hope that this paper spawns both
further scholarly examination of programmes geared towards unionized leaders and
incremental HRD research involving labour.
Third, the paper has implications for self-management interventions and research. The
present study reaffirms past findings concerning the complementary relationship between
goal setting and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). Goal setting is only effective if people
commit to their goals (Locke and Latham 2002). In this study, pre-training goal commit-
ment correlated with several measures, including transfer. These results provide further
evidence that both goal-based and self-efficacy-based interventions are effective transfer
interventions for management-development programmes focusing on general management
skills. Turning more specifically to self-management interventions, the present study
confirms the effectiveness of this technique and generalizes it to the area of manage-
ment-skills development for union and management leaders. Moreover, the lack of
differences between the two versions of self-management used in this study (e.g., distal
vs. proximal plus distal goals) suggests that both can be used for HRD purposes.
292 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

Limitations and future research

A limitation of this research is that almost 40% of trainees did not complete post-training
surveys. While the issue of survey fatigue is commonplace (Tourangeau 2004), and we
found no evidence of systematic non-response bias, the possibility exists that those who
did (and did not) complete the survey differed in some way.
A second limitation is our maintenance measure. Maintenance correlated with none of
the variables in this study. A potential explanation for this finding is limited variation
given the two-item measure. In any survey study, researchers have to balance the decision
to add additional survey questions with the potential risk of increased non-response bias
and survey fatigue. In this study, given the multiple-choice measures used, we opted to
only include two maintenance questions. Future research should use a larger number of
items to see if the present findings are idiosyncratic.
A third limitation concerns the low reliability of our goal commitment scale. The
limited examination of goals in unionized samples may suggest that this measure is less
effective in union contexts. Moreover, we found a difference between union and manage-
ment participants on this measure. However, given the scale’s low reliability, this union–
management difference should be interpreted cautiously.
A fourth limitation was the lack of a control group. In goal-setting research, urging
participants to do their best is the default control group (see reviews by Locke and Latham
(1990, 2002)). For reasons we outlined earlier, we did not feel that it was realistic, or even
possible, to use a true, non-goal, control group. Furthermore, other transfer studies
involving goals- and self-management have not used control groups (Gist, Bavetta, and
Stevens 1990; 1991). Nevertheless, future research should include a control group that
does not set goals of any kind to see if the present results hold true.
A fifth limitation is the fact that we relied on self-report data for some (e.g., self-BOS
ratings and maintenance) but not for all measures. Post-training, peer-BOS ratings were
also used to assess usage of skills in the workplace. Pre-training peer-BOS ratings were
not used. The stakeholders felt that assessment of the skills covered in training, prior to
learning such skills, could have a negative impact on the employee’s motivation to
participate and commit to the desired training programme. In addition, this training
session had non-union and union participants. Bringing these groups together for training
was already a potential barrier that could negatively impact trainees prior to the actual
training. Nevertheless, a superior design in future studies would be to incorporate addi-
tional non-self-report measures such as pre-training peer ratings.
Finally, the goal-setting procedure used in this study may be a potential limitation in
that the participants in this study may have set goals regularly in their work life and
therefore may have impacted the results. This may speak to a potential lack in general-
izability of the study to other samples.
Several other research areas can also be explored in future studies. As one avenue for
investigation, future studies may wish to use qualitative methods. For example, inter-
views, through probing techniques, could allow us to gain more in-depth insights con-
cerning specific examples of how people transferred the leadership skills to the workplace.
Second, our study took place in one country in a Canadian unionized context. The
union context of Canada is unique in several ways. Once a majority of employees agree to
unionization, and appropriate Canadian governmental agency declares that workgroup
unionized: (1) the union alone can negotiate the terms and conditions of employment for
all employees in that work unit (both those who wanted the union and those who did not
want the union); (2) all employees in that unit must pay union dues/fees; (3) the union
 Human Resource Development International 293

must be a separate entity from the employer and managers cannot be part of the union; (4)
employees can grieve (or appeal) management actions with union representation; (5)
union members have access to third-party binding decision-making processes in the
event of disputes; and (6) strikes cannot occur when a collective agreement is in place
(Hebdon and Brown 2012). These same factors do not occur in all unions in all countries.
In an effort to see whether the same utilization of general management skills occurs in
other union contexts, future research is needed in other countries.
Additionally, unionized organizations and leaders are fertile ground for future inves-
tigation. Unions, like all organizations, need people with the skills to manage the tasks,
resources and people to achieve organizational goals. To date, few studies have examined
transfer, management-skills training, goal setting, etc. in unionized contexts. Given the
international presence of unions, we hope that HRD researchers will start to explore this
untapped area.

Funding
Research was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grants
awarded to the first author [grant number 410-2005-0416], [grant number 410-2009-0066].

References
Baldwin, T., and J. Ford. 1988. “Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research.” Personnel Psychology 41: 63–105. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Blume, B. D., J. Kevin Ford, T. T. Baldwin, and J. L. Huang. 2010. “Transfer of Training: A Meta
Analytic Review.” Journal of Management 36 (4): 1065–1105. doi:10.1177/0149206309352880
Brown, T. C. 2005. “The Effectiveness of Distal and Proximal Goals as Transfer of Training
Interventions: A Field Experiment.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 16: 369–387.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1144
Brown, T. C., and G. P. Latham. 2000. “The Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Instruction Training on
the Performance of Unionized Employees.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 55: 80–
94. doi:10.7202/051292ar
Brown, T. C., and M. McCracken. 2010. “Which Goals should Participants set to Enhance the
Transfer of Learning from Management Development Programmes.” Journal of General
Management 34 (4): 27–44.
Brown, T. C., and A. M. Warren. 2005. “Effectiveness of Distal and Proximal Goals as Transfer-of-
Training Interventions: A Field Experiment.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 16:
369–387. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1144
Brown, T. C., and A. M. Warren. 2011. “Performance Management in Unionized Settings.” Human
Resource Management Review 21: 96–106. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.005
Burke, L. A., and H. M. Hutchins. 2007. “Training and Transfer: An Integrative Literature Review.”
Human Resource Development Review 6: 263–296. doi:10.1177/1534484307303035
Catalyst. 2013. “Women in Male-Dominated Industries and Occupations in US and Canada.” http://
www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-male-dominated-industries-and-occupations-us-and-
canada
Cheng, E. W. L., and D. C. K. Ho. 2001. “A review of Transfer of Training Studies in the Past
Decade.” Personnel Review 30: 102–118. doi:10.1108/00483480110380163
Cocklin, J. 2013. “Valley Unions Struggling to Attract the Young and Replace Aging Unions.”
Accessed April 11, 2014. http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/oct/06/valley-trade-unions-struggle-
to-fill-job/
Collins, D. B., and E. E. Holton III. 2004. “The Effectiveness of Managerial Leadership
Development Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Studies from 1982 to 2001.” Human Resource
Development Quarterly 15 (2): 217–248. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1099
Colquitt, J. A., J. A. LePine, and R. A. Noe. 2000. “Toward an Integrative Theory of Training
Motivation: A Meta-analytic Path Analysis of 20 Years of Research.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 85 (5): 678–707.
294 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

Conger, J. A., and K. Xin. 2000. “Executive Education in the 21st Century.” Journal of
Management Education 24: 73–101. doi:10.1177/105256290002400106
Cook, T. D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
CPP. 2004. FIROB Self-Scorable Booklet. Mountain View, CA: CPP.
Crotty, P. T., and A. T. Soule. 1997. “Executive Education: Yesterday and Today, with a look at
Tomorrow.” Journal of Management Development 16: 4–21. doi:10.1108/02621719710155445
d’Arbon, T., P. Duignan, and D. Duncan. 2002. “Planning for Future Leadership of Schools: An
Australian Study.” Journal of Educational Administration 40: 468–485. doi:10.1108/
09578230210440302
Frayne, C. A., and J. M. Geringer. 2000. “Self-Management Training for Improving Job
Performance: A Field Experiment Involving Salespeople.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85:
361–372. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.361
Frayne, C. A., and G. P. Latham. 1987. “Application of Social Learning Theory to Employee Self-
Management of Attendance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 387–392. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.72.3.387
Gaudine, A. P., and A. M. Saks. 2004. “A Longitudinal Quasi-Experiment on the Effects of
Posttraining Transfer Interventions.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 15: 57–76.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1087
Gist, M. E. 1989. “The Influence of Training Method on Self-Efficacy and Idea Generation among
Managers.” Personnel Psychology 42: 787–805. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00675.x
Gist, M. E., A. G. Bavetta, and C. K. Stevens. 1990. “Transfer Training Method: Its Influence on
Skill Generalization, Skill Repetition, and Performance Level.” Personnel Psychology 43: 501–
523. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02394.x
Gist, M. E., C. K. Stevens, and A. G. Bavetta. 1991. “Effects of Self-Efficacy and Post-Training
Intervention on the Acquisition and Maintenance of Complex Interpersonal Skills.” Personnel
Psychology 44: 837–861. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00701.x
Gunderson, M., and D. G. Taras. 2009. Canadian Labour and Employment Relations. 6th ed.
Toronto, ON: Pearson.
Hammer, A. L., and E. R. Schnell. 2000. FIRO-B® Technical Guide. Mountain View, CA: CPP.
Hannum, K. M., J. W. Martineau, and C. Reinelt. 2007. “Afterword: Future Directions for
Leadership Development Evaluation.” In The Handbook of Leadership Development
Evaluation, edited by K. M. Hannum, 559–574. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Haygroup. 2014. “Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI), Version 3.1.” http://www.haygroup.com/
leadershipandtalentondemand/ourproducts/item_details.aspx?itemid=21&type=1&t=2
Hebdon, R., and T. C. Brown. 2012. Industrial Relations in Canada. Toronto, ON: Thomson
Nelson.
Holton, E. F. III. 1996. “The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model.” Human Resource Development
Quarterly 7 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920070103
Holton, E. F. III. 2005. “Holton’s Evaluation Model: New Evidence and Construct Elaborations.”
Advances in Developing Human Resources 7 (1): 37–54. doi:10.1177/1523422304272080
Industry Report. 2006. Training 43 (12): 20–32.
Industry Report. 2009. Training 46 (8): 32–36.
James, L. R., R. G. Demaree, and G. Wolf. 1993. “R-Sub(Wg): An Assessment of Within-Group
Interrater Agreement.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 306–309. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.78.2.306
Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1976. “Evaluation.” In Training and Development Handbook, edited by R. L.
Craig, 301–319. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Klein, H. J., M. J. Wesson, J. R. Hollenbeck, P. M. Wright, and R. P. DeShon. 2001. “The
Assessment of Goal Commitment: A Measurement Model Meta-Analysis.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 85: 32–55. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2931
Kolb, A. Y., and D. A. Kolb. 2005. “The Kolb Learning Style Inventory–Version 3.1 2005 Technical
Specifications.” Cleveland Heights, OH: Haygroup and Experience Based Learning Systems,
Inc.
Kolb, D. A. 1976. Individual Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, MA: MCBER.
Kolb, D. A. 2005. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory–Version 3.1. Philadelphia, PA: HayGroup
2005 Technical Specifications. Cleveland Heights, OH: Experience Based Learning Systems.
 Human Resource Development International 295

Latham, G. P. 1988. “Human Resource Training and Development.” Annual Review of Psychology
39: 545–582. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.002553
Latham, G. P., and T. C. Brown. 2006. “The Effect of Learning vs. Outcome Goals on Self-Efficacy,
Satisfaction and Performance in an MBA Program.” Applied Psychology: An International
Review 55: 606–623. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00246.x
Latham, G. P., and E. A. Locke. 2006. “Enhancing the Benefits and Overcoming the Pitfalls of Goal
Setting.” Organizational Dynamics 35: 332–340. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.008
Latham, G. P., and C. C. Pinder. 2005. “Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the
Twenty-First Century.” Annual Review of Psychology 56: 485–516. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.55.090902.142105
Latham, G. P., and L. M. Saari. 1982. “The Importance of Union Acceptance for Productivity
Improvement through Goal Setting.” Personnel Psychology 35: 781–787. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1982.tb02221.x
Latham, G. P., and G. J. Seijts. 1999. “The Effects of Proximal and Distal Goals on Performance on
a Moderately Complex Task.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20 (4): 421–429.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<421::AID-JOB896>3.0.CO;2-#
Latham, G. P., and K. N. Wexley. 1977. “Behavioral Observation Scales for Performance Appraisal
Purposes.” Personnel Psychology 30: 255–268. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02092.x
Latham, G. P., and K. N. Wexley. 1994. Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal.
Reading MA: Addison-Wexley.
Lee, C., and P. Bobko. 1994. “Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Comparison of Five Measures.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 79: 364–369. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.364
Lewis Gregory, G. B., and Y. J. Cho. 2011. “The Aging of the State Government Workforce: Trends
and Implications.” The American Review of Public Administration 41: 48–60. doi:10.1177/
0275074009359308
Locke, E. A., and G. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood
cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., and G. Latham. 2002. “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey.” American Psychologist 57 (9): 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.57.9.705
Mackey, A., A. M. Warren, and K. E. Kelloway. 2012. “Perceptions of Unions by Generation Y
Union Members.” ASAC Conference, St. John’s, NL, June 9–12.
McMurray, A. M., D. Henly, W. Chaboyer, J. Clapton, A. Lizzio, and M. Teml. 2012. “Leadership
Succession Management in a University Health Faculty.” Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management 34 (4): 365–376. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2012.689198
Miller, L. 2012. “ASTD 2012 State of the Industry Report: Organizations Continue to Invest in
Workplace Learning.” T + D 66 (11): 42–49.
Morin, L., and G. Latham. 2000. “The Effect of Mental Practice and Goal Setting as a Transfer of
Training Intervention on Supervisors’ Self-Efficacy and Communication Skills: An Exploratory
Study.” Applied Psychology, An International Review 49 (3): 566–578. doi:10.1111/1464-
0597.00032
OECD. 2010. “Trade Union Density.” http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN
Phillips, C. 2007. “Today’s Talent Contest: The Battle for Talent in the UK is Hotting Up.” Human
Resource Management International Digest 15 (3): 3–5.
PRNewswire. 2013. “Aging Workforce Survey Finds Most Nurse Leaders Will Retire by the Year
2020 Data Cites Urgent Need for Implementation Of Strategies to Recruit and Retain Nurses.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aging-workforce-survey-finds-most-nurse-leaders-
will-retire-by-the-year-2020-56479182.html
Psychometrics. 2014. “The FIRO-B® Assessment.” http://www.psychometrics.com/docs/firob-en-
info.pdf
Richman-Hirsch, W. L. 2001. “Post Training Interventions to Enhance Transfer: The Moderating
Effects of Work Environments.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 12: 105–119.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.2.abs
Russ-Eft, D. F., P. Dickison, and R. Levine. 2010. “Taking the Pulse of Training Transfer: Instructor
Quality and EMT Certification Examination Results.” Human Resource Development Quarterly
21 (3): 291–306. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20052
296 T.C. Brown and A.M. Warren

Saks, A. M. 1995. “Longitudinal Field Investigation of the Moderating and Mediating Effects of
Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Training and Newcomer Adjustment.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 80: 211–225. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.211
Saks, A. M., and R. R. Haccoun. 2004. Managing Performance through Training and Development.
3rd ed. Scarborough, ON: Nelson.
Saks, A. M., and R. R. Haccoun. 2007. Managing Performance through Training and Development.
4th ed. Scarborough, ON: Nelson.
Schultz, W. 1958. FIROB: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York:
Rinehart.
Seijts, G. H., and G. P. Latham. 2001. “The Effect of Distal Learning, Outcome, and Proximal Goals
on a Moderately Complex Task.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22: 291–307.
doi:10.1002/job.70
Seijts, G. H., and G. P. Latham. 2005. “Learning Versus Performance Goals: When Should Each Be
Used?” Academy of Management Executive 19: 124–131.
Seijts, G. H., G. P. Latham, K. Tasa, and B. W. Latham. 2004. “Goal Setting and Goal Orientation:
An Integration of Two Different yet Related Literatures.” Academy of Management Journal 47
(2): 227–239. doi:10.2307/20159574
Sherman, R. O., L. Chiang-Hanisko, and R. Koszalinski. 2013. “The Ageing Nursing Workforce: A
Global Challenge.” Journal of Nursing Management 21: 899–902. doi:10.1111/jonm.12188
Society of Human Resource Management. 2012. “SHRM Research Spotlight: Future HR Challenges
and Talent Management Tactics.” http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/
Documents/SHRM-Challenge-HR-2022-Spotlight.pdf
Stevens, C. K., and M. E. Gist. 1997. “Effects of Self-Efficacy and Goal-Orientation Training on
Negotiation Skill Maintenance: What are the Mechanisms?” Personnel Psychology 50 (4): 955–
978. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01490.x
Taylor, M. 2004. “Widening Participation into Higher Education for Disabled Students.” Education
& Training 46 (1): 40–48. doi:10.1108/00400910410518214
Taylor, P. J., D. F. Russ-Eft, and D. W. L. Chan. 2005. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Behavior
Modeling Training.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (4): 692–709. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.90.4.692
Tourangeau, R. 2004. “Survey Research and Societal Change.” Annual Review of Psychology 55:
775–801. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142040
Wexley, K., and G. Latham. 2002. Developing and Training Human Resources in Organizations.
2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.
Whetten, D., and K. Cameron. 2011. Developing Management Skills. 8th ed. Toronto, ON: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Winters, D., and G. Latham. 1996. “The Effect of Learning versus Outcome Goals on a Simple
versus a Complex Task.” Group and Organization Management 21 (2): 236–250. doi:10.1177/
1059601196212007
Wolff, S. B., R. Wageman, and M. Fontaine. 2009. “The Coming Leadership Gap: An Exploration
of Competencies that will be in Short Supply.” International Journal of Human Resources
Development and Management 9 (2/3): 250–274. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2009.023455
Wosczyna-Birch, K., and K. Prewo. 2004. “Next Generation Manufacturing.” ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2341. Acessed June 20–23, 2004.
https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/blogs-and-newsletters/asee-action/feb-2004.pdf
Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.