Training & Organisational Level Outcomes – A Systematic Literature Review
Valerie Shanahan*, Thomas N. Garavan & Ronan Carbery
Valerie Shanahan*
Dept. of Personnel & Employment Relations Kemmy Business School
University of Limerick Republic of Ireland
Tel: +353(0)879401802 Email: [email protected]
Prof. Thomas N. Garavan, Edinburgh Napier Business School
Craiglockhardt Edinburgh Scotland
Tel: +353(0)61202176 Email: [email protected]
Dr. Ronan Carbery Dept. of Personnel & Employment Relations
Kemmy Business School University of Limerick
Republic of Ireland Tel: +353(0)61233705
Email: [email protected]
Submission type: Working Paper
Keywords: Training, Organisation Outcomes and Performance
2
Training & Organisational Level Outcomes – A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
Training is considered to be a fundamental component of any human resource management
(HRM) function in an organisation. It contributes to the cultivation and development of
human knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes. Although research on training and
development is something that is not new to organisation literature, it remains an area that
is weak in terms of theoretical underpinnings; it is methodologically difficult to measure;
and it provides a very complex argument at the organisational level of its value creation. In
this paper we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of 91 studies of training that
measured for it’s relationship with organisational level outcomes. We explored the context
of the training in these conditions, the methodological designs of the studies and the HRM,
organisational and financial outcomes reported. We identify a number of important
theoretical and methodological gaps in the current literature and make recommendations
for both research and practice.
3
1. Introduction
There is a universal acknowledgement in the literature that training contributes to the
success of an organisation (Aragon & Valle, 2012; Kraiger, 2003). This is based on the
assumption that training plays a key role in enhancing it’s human capital, an important
source of competitive advantage. Organizations who are highly committed to training and
integrates such an approach into their culture, tend to be more competitive (Porter, 1990)
and reach higher levels of productivity and financial performance (e.g. Delaney and Huselid,
1996; García, 2005).
Everything changes over time and since 2007 the global economy has been volatile and
unwaveringly erratic. Budgets are tight, accountability is imperative, and favourable
business results are expected consistently. All organisations and all functions in an
organization face tremendous challenges to show value and the training department is no
different. However, the problem of evaluating the results of training effort on performance,
both at an individual and organisational level, and thus demonstrating its effectiveness, is
still perceived as a ‘black box’ needing to be unlocked (Glaveli & Karassavidou, 2011).
Organisations who wish to survive and compete in the present-day knowledge-based global
economy, have to acquire and develop world-class human resource (HR) competencies and
as well as practices necessary for managing such resources (Aradhana & Anuradha, 2005;
Moideenkutty, Al-Lamki, & Murthy, 2011; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998). This belief has subsequently
led to research surrounding the link between training (as a component of SHRM) and
organisation performance. A number of researchers who have conducted studies on this
research issue have confirmed the positive impact of SHRM (including training) on
organisation performance (see, for example, Razouk, 2011; Delery and Doty, 1996; Huselid,
1995; Macduffie, 1995; Moideenkutty et al., 2011; Wright and Boswell, 2002). However,
4
there is also a group of researchers who have argued that the results of the SHRM–
organisation performance link are not encouraging, and that they are, in fact, ambiguous
(Guest, 1997; Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Paauwe, 2009).
There are a number of transparent reasons for the existence of this problematic ‘black box’.
First, Institutions, conscious of the strategic role of training, have been promoting this
aspect over the last decade (EU, national institutions, etc). However, companies maintain an
ambiguous position regarding investment in training. They generally accept training as an
important means to improve workers’ productivity, a present demand for all companies.
But, in practice, they usually face this challenge with cost containment, including those costs
allocated to training. This paradoxical situation can be explained by the fact that companies
do not understand how investments in training can provide value, that is, the effect of
training on business results (Kraaijenbrink, 2011). Second, research on the effects of training
on results criteria remains scarce. Firms that do evaluate training use only self-administered
reports completed by the trainees. Very few measure the impact of training on performance
at an organisational level (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett Jr., Traver, & Shotland, 1997;
Aragon & Valle, 2012; Kraiger, McLinden, & Casper, 2004). There has not been the same
degree of progress as there has been at the individual level of analysis (Rahman, Ng,
Sambasivan, & Wong, 2013; Tharenou, Saks, & Moore, 2007).
Although supported by both theoretical work such as the resource-based view (e.g.
Andersen et al., 2007; Priem and Butler, 2001; Wright and McMahan, 1992a) and some
empirical evidence (e.g. Becker and Gerhart 1996; Wright, Gardner and Moynihan 2003),
training still needs to prove its contribution to the organisation in a measurable way. To help
open up this black box we have endeavoured to create the first fully representative
systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on training and organisational level
5
outcomes. This is the first study since 2007 (Tharenou et al.) that reviews published work on
training and organisational level outcomes. It is the first systematic literature review of it’s
kind and it is extensive in terms of the research lenses it uses. Therefore, the objective of
this paper is to provide a fully-representative systematic review of published studies that
analyse the relationship between training and performance. It does this by first, explaining
the method used to undertake the SLR. Second, presenting the results of the studies by first
describing the organisation-level outcome results and describing them using the contextual
findings from the studies, the methodological designs and the evaluation methods used, as
well as the theoretical models that are represented to analyse the contribution to
organisation success. Third, discussing the findings and makes recommendations for both
theory and practice.
2. Method
Based on previous research provided by Denyer & Neely (2004), Keupp et al. (2012)
Tharenou et al. (2007), Thorpe et al. (2005), and Tranfield et al. (2003) we conducted a
systematic review of the literature on training and organisational level outcomes. SLRs are
guided by a review question, from which keywords for the database searches are defined
(de Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). In this study, the review question was ‘a review of the
literature on training and organisational performance? The question, borrowed from
Tharenou et al. (2007) is the base on which the foundations of this systematic literature
review are built on. However, it has been readdressed since the 2007 study by providing
both an elaboration and extension of the work previously carried out. This will be addressed
in detail in the following section.
6
Our SLR approach has a number of advantages. (1) we utilised a clear set of steps that can
be followed in future replication studies, (2) systematic literature reviews enable
researchers to provide evidence supporting arguments and (3) they enable the
generalisation of results and the critique of the accumulated knowledge on training. Figure
1 provides a summary of the review process undertaken to prepare this paper.
2.1 Conceptual Boundaries
Our research method commenced with the design of research objectives and the
positioning of conceptual boundaries. We start with a broad definition of training that
address issues related to organisational performance. Adb Rahman et al. (2013) as well as
many others use Goldstein’s (1986:837) definition of training: “the systematic acquisition of
skills, rules, concepts, or attitudes that result in improved performance”. There is a general
consensus in the literature that training leads to increased company performance (Aragon &
sanz Valle, 2013; Kraiger, 2003) and this underlying assumption suggests that training does
this by enhancing its human capital (Bartel, 1994) and its organisational knowledge
(Bollinger & Smith, 2001). Individuals rely on training to improve their current skills and
learn new skills (Mathieu et al., 1992). Organizations rely on training to enhance the
productivity and performance of their employees (Hornsby and Williams, 1990; Tobias,
1991).
[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]
We then defined the strategic context of the training research setting as any organisation,
be it public or in the private sector, manufacturing or service profit or non-profit, SME or
MNC that provides training to employees. The research setting is one of the key concepts
that defined the scope and boundaries of diversity training for the purpose of this review.
7
We define the training variables and research design dimensions of organisational training
by including all types of learning, training and development, be it formal or informal, on its
own or park of a wider HRM bundle and undertaken by the organisation and used to
measure organisation-level outcomes directly. The HRM, organisation and financial
outcomes of training were defined using Tharenou et al.’s (2007) theoretical framework
which is discussed in detail in the next section.
In order to address these challenges, we approached the review of the literature in an
inclusive way adopting an interpretive stance (Örtenblad, 2010). This stance seeks to
‘understand what is done and/or written under the heading of the concepts’ and what they
‘mean in general terms’ (p.446). Our review did however pay particular attention to the
unique context of training where the process of exploring the phenomenon of HRD is said to
lack clarity (Rigg and Trehan, 2002). Consistent with suggestions that HRD is more likely to
be perceived and talked about (Sambrook, 2000) by organisations in the wider HRM
literature as ‘training and development’, it may be more productive to use ‘HRD’ and ‘T&D’
to mean one and the same. However, rather than become preoccupied with the fixed label
of HRD, the interpretive stance allowed us to research and understand HRD in more general
terms (Örtenblad, 2010) (i.e. using the terms ‘training’, ‘development’ and ‘learning’). This
approach afforded a degree of flexibility in the review process thus capturing relevant
literatures, whether labelled HRD or not. Given the multi-faceted treatment of HRD we
allowed for a range of alternative ‘labels’ to identify relevant studies (Easterby-Smith, et al.,
2012). This approach resonates with recent developments regarding the implementation of
management knowledge and practice (Ansari et al., 2010), where ideas are translated,
adapted and interpreted to fit specific organisation contexts (Benders and Van Veen, 2001).
8
2.2 Data collection and analysis
We began the review process by collating data. In order to build a comprehensive database
of articles we applied the following inclusion criteria: First, in order to ensure broad
coverage of the literature that was reviewed, we decided that the search parameters would
focus on academic journal articles. We included peer-reviewed academic journal articles
only. Second, we conducted searches using electronic databases: Business Source Premier
(EBSCO), Google Scholar and Emerald, covering the period from September 2007 to May
2013 inclusive. Third, the levels of analysis was an important concern during our search of
the literature. It is essential to note that the outcome variables were measured at the
organisational level and this was an important concern during data collection. All studies
needed to have organisational level outcomes of training to qualify for inclusion. Too few
studies in the field of training have been conducted in this way. Individual level studies are
more prominent in the literature and this is something that needs to be addressed. It could
somewhat explain why there is no formal relationship measurement between both
concepts (training and organisational performance). A study was only included if
effectiveness was measured at the organizational level, either across organizations or large
intra-organizational units (e.g., plants, lines of operation, business units, stores, bank
branches). The number of organizations or organizational units forms the sample size
(Tharenou et al. 2007).
We included empirical quantitative articles in our review, as well as studies utilising
contrasting methodologies. Articles for inclusion were first identified by carrying out
database searches using search commands such as Training AND/OR Learning AND/OR
Development and Performance OR organisational outcomes OR organisational
performance. Strategic HRM or HRM was used in place of training as training can operate as
9
an element of a HR bundle. Terms such as HRD (Human resource development) and
Strategic HRD were also used as a means to cover all terms used in the literature that
describe training or incorporate it. Papers were only selected if there was a visible training
variable that had direct effects (including moderating and mediating effects) on
organisational-level outcomes. Papers that examined training within an entire HR bundle,
without demonstrating individual effects for the variable were discarded as they were too
ambiguous. The organisational level variables that were used in this study are those that
were used in the 2007 Tharenou et al. paper. These include HR outcomes, Organisational
performance outcomes and Financial Outcomes. All of which will be discussed in detail in
the next section.
The search identified many articles, however, a total of 30 were deemed relevant following
application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Manual coding of the articles was
undertaken based on the following pre-defined themes: Authors Names, date of
publication, Theoretical Perspectives, Organisational Context, Training Type, Study
population, Methodology, Training Measure, Reliability, HR Outcomes, Performance
Outcomes, Financial Outcomes. This approach was used whereby the sources required
careful scrutiny, expert judgement and interpretation (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Nolan &
Garavan, 2013) by the authors in order to identify the thematic codes therein. For example,
Theoretical concepts were not always explicitly stated in many articles; therefore, while
coding the information, the authors used indicators from the information to form an
educated assumption of the theory that underlined the arguments presented.
2.2.1. Tharenou et al.’s (2007) Contribution
The review aims to provide rigorous assessment of the literature by elaborating on the
Tharenou et al. (2007) study as well as extending it by including additional study concepts
10
and variables. Therefore, papers from the Tharenou et al. (2007) study (1979-2007) were
also included. We collected these papers and with the exception of 6 (see table 1 in
appendices) we expanded the study variables used and integrated the old framework with
the new one we designed for our study (See table in appendices). By combining both tables
we get a fully informed and enlarged database on which to analyse and investigate.
Tharenou et al. (2007) also proposed a theoretical framework that links training to
organizational outcomes which we have incorporated in our study (Fig.2) Tis provides us
with the ability to draw exact comparison and build on the extensive work they have done in
2007. The theoretical framework states that training has a direct effect on HR outcomes and
an indirect effect on organizational performance that is mediated through HR outcomes.
They used Ostroff and Bowen's (2000) classification scheme of employee attributes to
represent HR outcomes as it encompasses all of the variables in the various models:
attitudes (e.g., collective employee satisfaction) and motivation; behaviours (e.g.,
performance-related), and human capital (e.g., workforce knowledge, skills and abilities).
According to Ostroff and Bowen (2000), employees' collective attitudes, behaviours, and
human capital should influence organizational performance. In turn, organizational
performance should lead to positive financial outcomes for the organization (Becker &
Huselid, 1998; Dyer & Reeves, 1995), mediating the relationship between human resource
outcomes and financial performance.
Fig.2
2.3 Study Variables: Training
HR Outcomes 1. Attitudes &
Motivation 2. Behaviours 3. Human capital
Organisational Performance
Outcomes Performance &
productivity
Financial Outcomes
Profit & financial indicators (ROE,
ROA, ROI)
C
V
V
C
V
V
C
V
V
11
Our review of the literature on training and organisational level outcomes yielded a total
number of 92 suitable articles and a total of 91 studies undertaken [one paper published the
same statistics in two separate articles (Ubeda-Garcia, 2013a, 2013b)]. There are many
challenges in reviewing the literature as there seems to be little consistency in terms of the
method, training variable, outcomes measured and results yielded and although Tharenou
et al. (2007) provided a comprehensive review in their study, we have chosen to extend the
reach of their analysis by introducing other study variables that might inform the debate on
how training contributes to organisational effectiveness and bottom line results. We have
chosen to use contextual, theoretical and methodological study variables to inform the
discussion around this topic. In this section we discuss these variables.
Figure 3 provides a flow chart of the information gathered in the systematic literature
review.
Figure 1 The Flow of information informing our study
The variables for this study are broken down as follows:
•Country
•Sector
•Size of the Firm
•Ownership
•Study Population
•Type of Training
Context
•Theoritical Perspectives informing study
Theory •Data Type
•Training Measure & Design
•Type of Variable
Process
•HR Outcomes
•Performance Outcomes
•Financial Outcomes
Results
12
2.3.1 Theoretical
Theoretical concepts were not always explicitly stated in every article; therefore, while
coding the information, the authors used the information provided to decipher a theory that
emphasized the arguments presented. Theories that were highlighted include the RBV,
Human Capital theory, Systems theory as well as all the three SHRM perspectives: the
Universalistic, Contingency and the Configurational (See Table 2).
2.3.2 Contextual
Contextual organisational variables are one of our biggest contributions in this review. By
understanding the context in which the organisation operates and it’s training activities
function, it will give us a greater insight into the identification of training and its
contribution at an organisational level. Take for example, by analysing training activity from
a country/national perspective, it can give us an opportunity for a comparative study and
provide us with a global focus and identify trends. Other useful contextual indicators include
organisational variables such as organisation sector/industry and organisation size. They
provide us with a series of environmental characteristics that might help us explain the
relationship of training and organisational outcomes and inform our study.
Contextual organisational variables used: Country, Sector/Industry, Size of the Firm & Status
(MNC, SME…), Ownership (Public or Private) and Study Population (See Table 2).
2.2.4 Methodological
In terms of methodological variables, we analysed all aspects of the data collection of the
studies, encompassing all information from study sample size and study type to training
13
variable used and its reliability. In terms of data type, we inspected for cross sectional or
panel data. We looked for self-report or longitudinal data. We looked for binary, scale and
other measures of training activity, searched for who they were developed by and analysed
the reliability where reported. Finally we identified if the training variable was a predictor,
mediator or moderator variable (See Table 3).
2.2.5 Performance Outcomes
Research on training and organizational-level outcomes also varies as a function of the
outcome variables. We mirrored how Tharenou et al. (2007) selected their outcome
variables as we have used this data as a direct comparison with the studies we collected.
They categorised the variety of the outcome variables by using Dyer and Reeves' (1995)
four-category definition of organizational effectiveness for evaluating effects of HR
practices. They break down effectiveness outcomes into: (a) HR outcomes (b) organizational
performance outcomes (c) financial or accounting outcomes (d) if they are publicly listed
companies, stock market outcomes (shareholder returns, stock value). Studies in this review
used all types of these variables except for stock market outcomes which are rarely
measured and are the most far-removed theoretically from training (See Table 4).
3. RESULTS
The main aim of this paper is to discuss the training and organisation-level outcomes. In this
section we first review the results of the 91 studies that assessed the relationship between
training and the three categories of organisation-level outcomes: HR outcomes,
performance outcomes and financial outcomes. We then expand our investigation and
analyse first the theoretical foundations of training and organisation-level outcomes, then
14
we examine for the effect, if any, contextual and methodological variables have on the
training – organisation-level outcome research. It must be noted that the review uses a
qualitative approach for the most part in addressing the study results.
3.1 Training and Organisation-level Outcomes
Unsurprisingly consistent with the 2007 study, organizational performance outcomes (72
studies or 79% of the sample) were the most reoccurring outcome assessed, followed by
financial outcomes (39 studies or 44% of the sample) and then HR outcomes (30 studies,
34% of the sample). Of the studies to be reviewed, most calculated the independent link of
training to organizational outcomes. Very few studies used training to conduct tests for
mediating effects (4 studies). Very few also used training as a moderator variable (2 studies)
but interestingly in both cases also test for direct relationships with organisation-level
outcomes. However, there were many studies that assessed the effect of training in
association with other factors e.g. training as a component of a HR bundle, training and its
fit with business strategy, training as a construct of an internal labour market etc.
3.1.1 HR Outcomes
30 studies reported relationships between training and HR Outcomes. HR outcomes are
classified as follows: (a) employee attitudes (employee ratings of their satisfaction,
involvement, commitment or grievances) and motivation, all aggregated to the
organizational level; (b) behaviours (usually objective measures of retention, turnover or
absenteeism); (c) human capital (e.g., collective skills and competencies); (d) general HR
outcomes (multi-item scales combining measurement of several HR outcomes such as
motivation, retention, absenteeism, and development); and (e) perceptual HR outcomes.
15
Employee attitudes and motivation: 10 studies in total reported on actual changes in
attitudes and motivations in employees as a result of training. There were a number of
reoccurring positive and significant relationships reported: four studies measuring
organisational commitment (Ahmad & Schroeder, 2003; Fisher & McPhail, 2010; Paul &
Anantharaman, 2003; Zheng, Morrison, & O’Neill, 2006) and four studies measuring job
satisfaction (Costen & Salazar, 2011; Fisher & McPhail, 2010; Gurbuz & Mert, 2011). Among
the studies measuring attitudes and motivations is just one study that reported a non-
significant relationship between employee grievances and training (Ghebregiorgis &
Karsten, 2007). This represents the only negative relationship between attitudes and
training.
In terms of behaviours, Fisher & McPhail (2010) reported that employees intention to leave
reduces the more training they receive. This argument is strengthened by 7 other studies
that report a significant relationship between training and retention and turnover (Costen &
Salazar, 2011; Darwish, Singh, & Mohamed, 2013; Gelade & Ivery, 2003; Gurbuz & Mert,
2011; Ngo, Turban, Lau, & Lui, 1998; Paul & Anantharaman, 2003). Three studies reported a
negative relationship with turnover (Cho, Woods, (Shawn) Jang, & Erdem, 2006;
Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999; Zheng et al., 2006). One study measured for
training and voluntary and involuntary turnover (Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998).
Their findings would suggest that organisations that invest in training have higher levels of
both. The inability to retain competent and skilled employees has been identified as a
barrier to organisations' success (Darwish et al., 2013) therefore it is unsurprising that
retention and turnover were widely measured. Higher levels of training contribute positively
to lower levels of turnover and higher levels of retention.
16
With respect to human capital, there were six studies in total that measured the
relationship between training and specified collective skills and competencies. In
organisations that provide more training, the more extrinsic and intrinsic benefits employee
receive (Glaveli & Karassavidou, 2011), the more competent staff they have (Zheng et al.,
2006) the more operator skills they will possess (Wright, Dyer, & Takla, 1999) and the more
skills, knowledge and motivation they will have (Fey & Björkman, 2001). However, two
studies have reported that the more training provided the less competent staff will be (Paul
& Anantharaman, 2003; Zheng et al., 2006) and the less able to problem solve they will be
(Muñoz Castellanos & Salinero Martín, 2011a). On the majority the more training delivered
to employee the more competent they are to undertake their tasks and the more skills and
abilities they have to perform those tasks effectively.
In terms of perceptions, some studies reported the employees perceived benefits of HR
outcomes they received from training. These perceptions included all three attitudes,
behaviours and human capital (García, 2005; Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004; A. A. Katou
& Budhwar, 2006; A. Katou & Budhwar, 2007; Paul & Anantharaman, 2003). `
Overall, we recognise that there is an unquestionable association between training and HR
outcomes and in the majority of case this relationship is significantly positive, especially in
terms of job satisfaction and commitment, both perceived and actual.
3.1.2 Organisation Performance Outcomes
Tharneou et al. (2007) have classified performance outcomes as follows and review the
results of the studies for the outcomes in this order: (a) productivity (objectively-measured
labor productivity/value added per employee, productivity growth/gains, labor efficiency,
export growth); (b) sales (objectively-measured sales per employee, sales output, sales
17
growth, new sales); (c) quality (objectively-measured waste/defects, accuracy; customer
satisfaction and other responses as assessed by customers aggregated to organizational
level); (d) general performance outcomes (overall performance as an objective single item
measure or by combining information on several facets such as productivity, quality,
customer satisfaction; growth); (e) and perceptual measures of organizational performance.
Almost all of the studies measured for organisation performance outcomes.
16 studies measure productivity. 23 studies out of 72 measured reported the significance of
sales volume as a consequence of training levels. Of these 23 studies 13 studies reported
positive significant relationships, 6 reported negative relationships and 3 were ambiguous.
For productivity measures, 50 studies in total measured for a variety of productivity
indicators. Of these, 38 (76%) reported a positive significant relationship with training. 11
(22%) indicated a negative or non-significant relationship and 2 studies were ambiguous.
Finally in terms of quality indicators, 20 studies measured for the significance of training in
quality improvement. Of these, 16 (80%) measured a positive significant relationship,
reported a negative or non-significant relationship and 2 were ambiguous indicating mixed
results.
Perceptual measures were noted as a popular method of analysis (40%). 20 studies
measured perceptions of organisational outcomes. This is interesting (discussed in notes)
3.1.3 Financial Outcomes
Tharenou et al. (2007) have classified these outcomes as follows: (a) profit/profitability (b)
return as return on equity (ROE), assets (ROA), investment (ROI), or capital; (c) general
financial outcomes (reports of measures such as cash flow, total assets, liquidity, market to
book ratio, and overall measures of financial performance); and (d) perceptual measures of
18
financial outcomes. 38 studies (42%) have investigated the relationship between training
and financial outcomes. 12 studies reported positive significant relationship between
training and general financial performance measures. 5 found significant negative
relationships between training and financial performance (Adnan, Abdullah, & Ahmad,
2011), perceived financial performance (Wright, Mccormick, Sherman, & Mcmahan, 1999)
market growth (Andersen et al., 2007), solvency and liquidity (Faems, Sels, De Winne, &
Maes, 2005) and store net income (Wiley, 1991).
14 studies measured for profitability and only 6 report a positive significant relationship
between training and profitability (Bernthal & Wellins, 2006; Chand & Katou, 2007; Khatri,
2000; Miron & McClelland, 1979; Park & Jacobs, 2011; Paul & Anantharaman, 2003). Others
(3) reported non-significant positive relationships (Faems et al., 2005; Guerrero & Barraud-
Didier, 2004; Muñoz Castellanos & Salinero Martín, 2011b; Storey, 2002) and others (4)
reported negative relationships (Adnan et al., 2011; Andersen et al., 2007; Birley &
Westhead, 1990; Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004).
A number of studies measured for the ROA, ROI and/or ROE and yielded positive results
(Aragon & Valle, 2012; Bernthal & Wellins, 2006; d’Arcimoles, 1997; Darwish et al., 2013;
Paul & Anantharaman, 2003). Non-significant and negative studies were also present
(Andersen et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2006; Delery & Doty, 1996; Kwon & Rupp, 2013; Meschi &
Metais, 1998; Vandenberg et al., 1999) as was an ambiguous study reporting mixed results
(Newkirk-Moore & Bracker, 1998).
3.2 Theory & SHRM Perspectives in the Training-Organisation-level Outcome Relationship
Training and organisational-level outcomes research has drawn on a wide range of theories,
models and perspectives (see table 1 in appendices) that are widely employed by strategic
19
HRM (SHRM) scholars. The papers we reviewed for the most part highlighted particular
theory/theories that informed the overall study (e.g. Chand 2011 and Costen & Salazar,
2011) however some gave very little attention to a theoretical explanation. After
undertaking a detailed analysis of the papers in question we ascertained which theoretical
perspective was underlining the arguments.
Wright and McMahon (1992) outlined a convincing conceptual framework that incorporates
six theoretical models. This framework explores the linkage between HRM practice and
organisational-level outcomes. According to their framework and the theoretical models,
HRM practices influence the HR capital pool and HR behaviours; HR behaviours then lead to
firm-level outcomes (Tharenou et al., 2007). We use four of the theories presented in this
research as well as others cited in the most recent literature to explore the current
perspectives on the topic. In doing this we have identified theoretical categories: (1)
strategic models (2) social models, (3) SHRM perspectives.
3.2.1 Strategic Models
First, Wright and McMahon (1992) state that strategic theories are informed by proactive
strategically intended decisions. They originally claim the resource-based view (RBV), the
behavioural perspective, the cybernetic systems model and agency theory as the macro
theories that impact strategic decision making in HRM. All four of these were very much
present in the studies examined for this article. The most common being the RBV. However,
we have identified human capital theory as another well recited theory that more often
than not is used to balance or compliment the RBV in the research and can be, without
question, included in the strategic models group.
20
The resource-based view: A significant proportion of the articles have drawn on either or
both the RBV and human capital theory (n=71). The RBV has been instrumental in the
development of training initiatives. It has shifted in the literature from a focus on exploiting
external opportunities to developing internal resources and competencies as a means of
gaining competitive advantage. RBV has been suggested as one perspective that provides a
rationale for how human resources could provide a potential source of sustainable
competitive advantage (Wright & McMahon, 1992) when it possesses resources that add
positive value to the firm, are unique, imperfectly imitable, and cannot be substituted with
another resource by competitors (Tharenou et al., 2007). Applying the resource-based view
to training suggests that training can be viewed as an investment in human capital that
provides employees with unique knowledge, skills and abilities that add value to the firm
and enable the performance of activities required to achieve organizational goals, thus
resulting in positive organizational-level outcomes (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). The RBV was
mainly used in articles that studied general/formal training (Gurbuz & Mert 2011; Thang &
Quang 2011; Ukenna, Ijeoma, Anionwu & Olise 2010; Ghebregiorgis & Karsten, 2007; Cho,
Woods, Jang & Erdem 2006; Thang & Quang 2005; Ng & Siu, 2004; Wright et al. 1999; Bartel
1994; Wiley 1991) and management training and development (Abd Rahman et al. 2013;
Aragon & Sanz Valle 2013; Sheehan, 2012; Anderson, Cooper & Zhu 2007; Berthal & Wellins,
2006; Mabey & Ramirez 2005; Deng, Menguc & Benson 2003; Newkirk-Moore & Bracker
1998) to measure it’s impact on organisational performance. Studies that used the RBV as a
theoretical lens tended to have strong significant relationship between training and
organisation-level outcomes overall. In terms of HR outcomes: 17 studies highlighted a
positive significant relationship between training and HR outcomes and 5 studies explained
not significant relationship. This would suggest the RBV is a strong theory for explaining the
21
robust relationship between both variables. With respect of Organisation Performance
Outcomes and the RBV theoretical lens, 36 studies highlighted a positive significant
relationship between training and organisation performance outcomes and 20 studies
explained non-significant relationships. This finding suggests that in terms of the OP
Outcomes, applying RBV doesn’t quite guarantee positive outcomes. Finally in terms of
financial outcomes, the RBV studies emphasise 18 studies with a positive significant
relationship with financial outcomes and 11 studies with non-significant relationships.
Again this doesn’t appear to be a strong theoretical framework for explaining this
relationship.
The relationship between human capital and the RBV has been explored in the literature on
SHRM (Barney and Wright, 1998; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Boxall, 1996; Boxall and Purcell,
2000; Hitt et al., 2001; Kamoche, 1996; Lado and Wilson, 1994; Richard and Johnson, 2001;
Wright et al., 2001) and RBV is typically used as a backdrop and seeks to frame HRM
questions into the RBV framework.
The theory of human capital is also seen as fundamental in an organisational setting. Human
Capital constitutes people’s qualities, abilities, skills, talents, and experiences that make
them economically productive (Verkhohlyad & McLean, 2011). The basis of human capital
theory is that investments made in educating and developing the workforce and developing
their skills will pay dividends to an organisation that is pursuing improvements in economic
viability. Hence, the objective of training is to educate and develop people within the
collective relations of the organization, with the intention of increasing employee
productivity and organizational effectiveness (Metcalfe, 2005).
18 studies used human capital theory as a theoretical framework that also measured for HR
outcomes. Of these, 15 studies reported a significant positive relationship between training
22
and some HR outcomes, and 6 studies reported negatively. 32 studies that examined
training and organisation performance outcomes using human capital theory had significant
positive relationships, while 17 reported negative results. There were six studies that
reported mixed results. And finally, human capital theory features in 12 studies that report a
significant negative relationship between training and certain financial outcomes and 11
studies that report a positive significant relationship.
The behavioural perspective (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright & McMahan, 1992b)
examines the link between competitive strategy and HRM practices by suggesting that
employee behaviours mediate the relationship. Applying the behavioral perspective to
training suggests that training will result in positive organizational outcomes to the extent
that it results in employee behaviors that are required by the organization's strategy (Wright
and McMahon, 1992). Eight studies in total relate the relationship between training and
organisation outcomes using this perspective.
The cybernetic systems models also known as input–throughput–output models (Wright &
McMahan, 1992) are widely used in the literature. We identified eight studies that use open
system models to portray organizations as transforming inputs that consist of employees'
knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs); the throughput is employee behaviors; and output
includes productivity, satisfaction, and turnover. Included under the cybernetic approach is
an open systems model of the HR system in which employee competencies (inputs) lead to
behaviors (throughputs) which then lead to affective and performance outcomes (outputs)
(Wright & MacMahon).
It must be noted that only one study used transaction cost theory in their argument (Ahmad
& Schroeder, 2003).
23
3.2.2 Social Models
Two studies (Glaveli & Karassavidou, 2011; Tzafrir, 2005) used Social Exchange Theory to
reinforce the uses of HRM practices to mediate the relationship between trust and
organisational performance. Social exchange emphasizes relationship development over
time, and indicates that a successful social exchange circle involves trust and uncertainty
(Tzafrir, 2005). Training regarded as providing benefits to employees may be considered as a
social exchange between the organization and its employees (Glaveli, 2011). Interestingly,
only one study (Kwon & Rupp, 2013) examines the impact of Social Capital Theory in the
firm considering its usage in broader HRM and management literature has increased over
the last decade. The study did however provide significant positive results between training
and organisation and HR outcomes.
3.2.2 SHRM Perspectives
The majority of the theories discussed so far imply a direct linear relationship between
training and organizational outcomes. However, theories of SHRM (e.g., resource based
theory, behavioral theory) imply that other types of relationships also need to be
considered. The literature on SHRM provides alternative perspectives of the relationship
between HR practices and organization-level outcomes that are generally referred to as the
universalistic, contingency, and configurational perspectives (Delery and Doty,
1996 and Ostroff and Bowen, 2000). These perspectives can also explain different types of
relationships between training and organizational-level outcomes.
According to the universalistic perspective, some HR practices such as formal training are
work practices that are believed to be linked to organizational effectiveness for all
organizations that use them (Delery and Doty, 1996 and Ostroff and Bowen, 2000). The
24
basic premise of the perspective is that greater use of training will result in better
organizational performance. This is in effect the primary perspective taken in most studies
on training and organizational-level outcomes, in which training is predicted to have a
positive relationship with organizational outcomes. The general premise of the contingency
perspective is that the relationship between a specific HR practice (i.e. training) and
organizational performance is contingent on key contextual factors, particularly an
organization's strategy (Delery & Doty, 1996). Thus, organizations adopting particular
strategies require certain HR practices that will differ from those required by organizations
with different strategies. When applied to training, the contingency perspective suggests
that extensive formal training will be most effective when used in combination with certain
organizational strategies (e.g., Schuler, 1989). The configurational perspective suggests that
there are ideal types or configurations of HR practices that form HR systems that lead to
superior performance (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). In high-performance systems, HR practices
need to be complementary and interdependent, working together to develop valuable,
unique human capacities to increase organizational effectiveness (Barney & Wright, 1998).
When applied to training, the configurational perspective suggests that training will enhance
organizational effectiveness when it is used in conjunction with other, complementary HR
practices than when used independently. Thus, when firms invest in training, training must
be consistent with other HR practices.
In summary, the SHRM literature suggests that the nature of the relationship between
training and organizational-level outcomes might be universalistic, such that HR outcomes
mediate the relationship between training and organizational performance; and/or it might
be moderated by organizational factors such as firm strategy (contingency perspective);
25
and/or it might be moderated by other congruent HR practices (configurational perspective)
(Tharenou et al. 2007).
3.3 An explanation of the Organisation Context in the Training-Organisation-level
Outcome Relationship
Our analysis indicates that the majority of organisations in our study that reported on the
organisation ownership were private (N=19). Most studies didn’t indicate either public or private
(N=61) and only five were public sector organisations. A small proportion used organisations in both
private and public sectors (N=6).
The organisations studied include a broad variety: MNCs, Large national organisations, medium sized
organisations, SMEs and micro organisations. The industries are focused mainly on general
manufacturing (N=29) and services (N=8) and in particular the financial sector (N=10), hospitality,
leisure and tourism (N=6) or mix of all. Other specific sectors mentioned include distribution,
logging, petro-chemical, computer software and retail.
Finally the county of study was also examined. EU Countries (N=22), Non EU Advanced (N=35)
including USA (N=25). BRICS countries make up a further 10 studies (China, Russia and India) while
other developing countries make up the count (N=12).
4. Theoretical & Methodological Gaps (workings)
With the growing body of research on training and organizational-level outcomes,
consistent with Tharenou et al. (2007) there remains issues with our understanding of how,
when, and why training relates to organizational-level outcomes. In this section we identify
mainly theoretical and methodological issues that exist in the literature.
4.1 Theoretical perspectives
26
This review indicates that training is positively related to organizational-level outcomes.
However the reasons for this positive relationship are still very vague. Also, there is
satisfactory evidence that training leads to both individual and organizational outcomes.
However, we are still unclear of which theory to employ to help our understanding of how
individual-level outcomes lead to organizational level outcomes (Tharenou et al. 2007).
4.2 Methodological perspectives
A major problem and source of inconsistency across studies has been the type of training
measure used. The measures of training have tended to be general rather than specific,
limiting understanding of what kind of training improves organizational effectiveness. In
addition to differences in the content of training measures across studies, the way that
training has been measured also raises concerns about reliability and validity.
4.3 Publication distribution
The majority of the studies were published in HRM and general management published
works. The International Journal of Human Resource Management (IJHRM) published by far
the most papers measuring training and organisation level outcomes (N=34). The Strategic
Management Journal (N=3), Thunderbird International Business Review (N=2), Personnel
Psychology (N=4) Journals of Applied Psychology (N=1) and Managerial Psychology (N=1).
Surprisingly only six of the total training dedicated journal carried studies that measure for
the training organisational-level outcome relationship. These are the European Journal of
Training and Development (N=2), the International Journal of Training and Development
(N=2) and Human Resource Development Quarterly (N=2). The highest rated management
academic journal (Impact Factor: 5.608) the Academy of Management Journal published
three studies in the area (N=3). We have also seen studies published in other areas in the
literature such as marketing, economics and hospitality. This fragmented approach in terms
27
of what discipline it resides in is evident of the wide-spanning impact training has in terms
of value creation for the organisation.
5. Conclusions
Training and it’s potential value creation for the organisation is a significant research area in
human resource development, human resource management and in organisational
psychology. This paper presents a review of the studies that highlight that impact between
training and organisation outcomes. The results highlight the continually weak and
fragmented training literature in terms of theoretical underpinning, methodology and
concrete performance outcomes. Current conceptualisations are also highly individual-
focused and research training primarily from the perspective of the individual rather than
the team or organisation.
This SLR has both strengths and weaknesses. It is the most fully-representative SLR of it’s
kind that looks at training and organisation-level outcomes. From a limitations perspective,
many of the studies included in the review comprised many different types of training
activities. We have tried to resolve these ambiguities, but acknowledge that we may have
lost some nuance in comparing studies for the review. Our review does not escape the
limitation of publication bias. We focused on published studies and ignored unpublished
work, findings presented in book chapters and at conferences. We are confident, however,
that the review can make a meaningful contribution to theory, practice and policy. It is
constructed to inform both researchers and practitioners of some of the issues that need to
be addressed to make a stronger case for the value of training in organisations.
28
REFERENCES
Adnan, Z., Abdullah, H. S., & Ahmad, J. (2011). Direct influence of human resource management practices on financial performance in Malaysian R&D companies. World Review of Business Research, 1(3), 61–77.
Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of human resource management practices on operational performance: recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of Operations Management, 21(1), 19–43. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00056-6
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett Jr., W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A META-ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS AMONG TRAINING CRITERIA. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–358. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9708176064&site=ehost-live
Andersen, K. K., Cooper, B. K., & Zhu, C. J. (2007). The effect of SHRM practices on perceived firm financial performance: Some initial evidence from Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(2), 168–179. doi:10.1177/1038411107079111
Aradhana, K., & Anuradha, S. (2005). Managing human resource capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage: An empirical analysis from Indian global organisations. Education + Training, 47(8/9), 628–639. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19957496&site=ehost-live
Aragon, I. B., & Valle, R. S. (2012). Does training managers pay off? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1671–1684. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.725064
Bartel, A. (1994). Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training programs. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 33(4). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1994.tb00349.x/abstract
Becker, B., & Huselid, M. (1998). High Performance Work Systems and Firm Performance: A Synthesis of Research and Managerial Implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Journal, 16(1), 53–101.
Benders, J., & Van Veen, K. (2001). What’s in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions. Organization, 8(1), 33–53.
Bernthal, P., & Wellins, R. (2006). Trends in leader development and succession. Human Resource Planning, 29(2), 31–40. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Trends+in+Leader+Development+and+Succession#0
Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1990). Growth and performance contrasts between “types” of small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 535–557. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250110705/abstract
Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 8–18. doi:10.1108/13673270110384365
29
Chand, M., & Katou, A. A. (2007). The impact of HRM practices on organisational performance in the Indian hotel industry. Employee Relations, 29(6), 576–594. doi:10.1108/01425450710826096
Cho, S., Woods, R. H., (Shawn) Jang, S., & Erdem, M. (2006). Measuring the impact of human resource management practices on hospitality firms’ performances. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 262–277. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.04.001
Costen, W. M., & Salazar, J. (2011). The Impact of Training and Development on Employee Job Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Intent to Stay in the Lodging Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(3), 273–284. doi:10.1080/15332845.2011.555734
d’Arcimoles, C.-H. (1997). Human Resource Policies and Company Performance: A Quantitative Approach Using Longitudinal Data. Organization Studies , 18 (5 ), 857–874. doi:10.1177/017084069701800508
Darwish, T. K., Singh, S., & Mohamed, A. F. (2013). The role of strategic HR practices in organisational effectiveness: an empirical investigation in the country of Jordan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(17), 3343–3362. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.775174
De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible Working and Performance: A Systematic Review of the Evidence for a Business Case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 452–474. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00301.x
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969. doi:10.2307/256718
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). MODES OF THEORIZING IN STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: TESTS OF UNIVERSALISTIC, CONTINGENCY, AND CONFIGURATIONS. PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835. doi:10.2307/256713
Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3-4), 131–135. doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00100.x
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review.
Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3), 656–670.
Faems, D., Sels, L., De Winne, S., & Maes, J. (2005). The effect of individual HR domains on financial performance: evidence from Belgian small businesses. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 676–700. doi:10.1080/09585190500082790
Fey, C. F., & Björkman, I. (2001). The Effect of Human Resource Management Practices on MNC Subsidiary Performance in Russia. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 59–75. doi:10.2307/3069510
30
Fisher, R., & McPhail, R. (2010). Internal labour markets as a strategic tool: A comparative study of UK and Chinese hotels. The Service Industries Journal, 31(2), 137–152. doi:10.1080/02642060802644942
García, M. Ú. (2005). Training and business performance: the Spanish case. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1691–1710. doi:10.1080/09585190500239341
Gelade, G., & Ivery, M. (2003). THE IMPACT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND WORK CLIMATE ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 383–404. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00155.x
Ghebregiorgis, F., & Karsten, L. (2007). Human resource management and performance in a developing country: the case of Eritrea. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(2), 321–332. doi:10.1080/09585190601102547
Glaveli, N., & Karassavidou, E. (2011). Exploring a possible route through which training affects organizational performance: the case of a Greek bank. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(14), 2892–2923. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.606113
Guerrero, S., & Barraud-Didier, V. (2004). High-involvement practices and performance of French firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(8), 1408–1423. doi:10.1080/0958519042000258002
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263–276. doi:10.1080/095851997341630
Gurbuz, S., & Mert, I. S. (2011). Impact of the strategic human resource management on organizational performance: evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1803–1822. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.565669
Hornsby, H. H., & Williams, C. G. (1990). CAM still needs people. Business and Economic Review, 37(1), 26–30.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. doi:10.2307/256741
Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2006). Human resource management systems and organizational performance: a test of a mediating model in the Greek manufacturing context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 1223–1253. doi:10.1080/09585190600756525
Katou, A., & Budhwar, P. (2007). The Effect of Human Resource Management Policies on Organsiational Performance in Greek Manufacturing Firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 49(1), 1–35.
Khatri, N. (2000). Managing human resource for competitive advantage: a study of companies in Singapore. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 336–365. doi:10.1080/095851900339909
31
Kraaijenbrink, J. (2011). Human Capital in the Resource-Based View. In J. C. S. & A. Burton-Jones (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human capital (pp. 218–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press / UK.
Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. Handbook of Psychology.
Kraiger, K., McLinden, D., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Collaborative planning for training impact. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 337–351. doi:10.1002/hrm.20028
Kwon, K., & Rupp, D. E. (2013). High-performer turnover and firm performance: The moderating role of human capital investment and firm reputation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 129–150. doi:10.1002/job.1804
Macduffie, J. P. (1995). Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197–221. doi:10.2307/2524483
Meschi, P.-X., & Metais, E. (1998). A socio-economic study of companies through their training policies: new empirical considerations in the French context. MIR: Management International Review, 25–48.
Miron, D., & McClelland, D. C. (1979). The Impact of Achievement Motivation Training of Small Businesses. California Management Review, 21(4), 13–28. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6347237&site=ehost-live
Moideenkutty, U., Al-Lamki, A., & Murthy, Y. S. R. (2011). HRM practices and organizational performance in Oman. Personnel Review, 40(2), 239–251. doi:10.1108/00483481111106101
Muñoz Castellanos, R. M., & Salinero Martín, M. Y. (2011a). Training as a source of competitive advantage: performance impact and the role of firm strategy, the Spanish case. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3), 574–594. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.543635
Muñoz Castellanos, R. M., & Salinero Martín, M. Y. (2011b). Training as a source of competitive advantage: performance impact and the role of firm strategy, the Spanish case. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3), 574–594. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.543635
Newkirk-Moore, S., & Bracker, J. S. (1998). Strategic management training and commitment to planning: critical partners in stimulating firm performance. International Journal of Training and Development, 2(2), 82–90. doi:10.1111/1468-2419.00037
Ngo, H., Turban, D., Lau, C., & Lui, S. (1998). Human resource practices and firm performance of multinational corporations: influences of country origin. … Journal of Human Resource …, (April 2013), 632–652. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095851998340937
Örtenblad, A. (2010). Odd couples or perfect matches? On the development of management knowledge packaged in the form of labels. Management Learning, 41(4), 443–452.
32
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and Prospects. Journal of Management Studies, pp. 129–142. Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00809.x
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: what next? Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 68–83. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=18850365&site=ehost-live
Park, Y., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). The influence of investment in workplace learning on learning outcomes and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), 437–458. Retrieved from 10.1002/hrdq.20085
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Impact of people management practices on organizational performance: analysis of a causal model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1246–1266. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=10917483&site=ehost-live
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Harvard Business Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.ie/books?id=vM4KVbyID-EC
Porter, M. E. (1990). Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.ie/books?id=onk4QH2rxGIC
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259392
Rahman, A. A., Ng, S. I., Sambasivan, M., & Wong, F. (2013). Training and organizational effectiveness: moderating role of knowledge management process. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(5), 472–488. doi:10.1108/03090591311327295
Razouk, A. A. (2011). High-performance work systems and performance of French small- and medium-sized enterprises: examining causal order. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(2), 311–330. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.540157
Rigg, C., & Trehan, K. (2002). Do they or don’t they? A comparison of traditional and discourse perspectives of HRD in SMEs. Education+ Training, 44(8/9), 388–397.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Organizational Strategy and Organization Level as Determinants of Human Resource Management Practices. Human Resource Planning, 10(3), 125–142. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=7702996&site=ehost-live
33
Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1998). An Organization-Level Analysis of Voluntary and Involuntary Turnover. Academy of Management Journal , 41 (5 ), 511–525. doi:10.2307/256939
Storey, D. J. (2002). Education, training and development policies and practices in medium-sized companies in the UK: Do they really influence firm performance? Omega, 30(4), 249–264. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0036062854&partnerID=40&md5=27454b386cbb46b525b54e792a53a627
Tharenou, P., Saks, A. M., & Moore, C. (2007). A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 251–273. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.07.004
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x
Tobias, A. M. (1991). Managing the redesign of manufacturing systems. International Journal of Technology Management. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ind/ijtm/1991/00000006/F0020003/art00014
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Tzafrir, S. S. (2005). The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1600–1622. doi:10.1080/09585190500239135
Úbeda-García, M., Marco-Lajara, B., Sabater-Sempere, V., & Garcia-Lillo, F. (2013). Training policy and organisational performance in the Spanish hotel industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(15), 2851–2875. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.750617
Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The Impact of High Involvement Work Processes on Organizational Effectiveness: A Second-Order Latent Variable Approach . Group & Organization Management , 24 (3 ), 300–339. doi:10.1177/1059601199243004
Wiley, J. W. (1991). Customer satisfaction: A supportive work environment and its financial cost. Human Resource Planning, 14(2), 117–127.
Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of Micro and Macro Human Resource Management Research. Journal of Management , 28 (3 ), 247–276. doi:10.1177/014920630202800302
Wright, P. M., Dyer, L., & Takla, M. G. (1999). What’s Next? Key Findings from the 1999 State-of-the-Art & Practice Study. Human Resource Planning, 22(4), 12–20. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3876599&site=ehost-live
Wright, P. M., Mccormick, B., Sherman, W. S., & Mcmahan, G. C. (1999). The role of human resource practices in petro-chemical refinery performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(4), 551–571. doi:10.1080/095851999340260
34
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992a). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5978337&site=ehost-live
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992b). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5978337&site=ehost-live
Zheng, C., Morrison, M., & O’Neill, G. (2006). An empirical study of high performance HRM practices in Chinese SMEs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(10), 1772–1803. doi:10.1080/09585190600965282
35
Identify key research themes in the training and organisational outcome literature to date
Discuss theoretical, conceptual and methodological deficiencies within the HRM/HRD literature
Discuss key contextualised approaches that help address the unique challenges surrounding the study of training & organisation level outcomes value creation
Draw further insights from the literature to advance HRM/HRD research
Broadly define the relationship between training and organisational level outcomes
Define the strategic context of organisational training
Define the training variables and research design dimensions of organisational training
Define and categorise the HRM, organisation and financial outcomes of training
Search Boundaries
ABS ranked journals
Primary and secondary subject areas
Electronic databases
Cover Period 2007- May 2013
Search Terms Training AND/OR Learning AND/OR Development and
Performance AND/OR
organisational outcomes AND/OR
organisational performance.
Papers were only selected if there was a visible training variable that had direct effects (including moderating and mediating effects) on organisational-level outcomes.
Papers that examined training within an entire HR bundle, without demonstrating individual effects for the variable were discarded as they were too ambiguous.
Papers were only selected if they measured at the organisational level of analysis and not the team or individual.
An independent literature search on training and organisational level outcomes (and its variants) using Google Scholar was compared with the above search results
Cross-comparison of coding results
Revisiting articles for recoding
Ensuring inter-rater reliability
Researcher A Researcher B
Establishing the
Research
Objectives
Defining the
Conceptual
Boundaries
Setting the
Inclusion Criteria
Applying the
Exclusion Criteria
Validating Search
Results
Independent
Data Coding
Validating Data
Coding
Figure 1. A Summary of the SLR Method Used (2007-2013)
36
List of papers in Study
Study Year Journal
Abd Rahman, Ng, Sambasivan and Wong 2013 European Journal of Training & Development (EJTD) Chen, Hsu & Huang 2013 Global Journal of Business Research Darwish, Singh, Mohamed 2013 The International Journal of Human Resource management
(IJHRM) Kwon & Rupp 2013 Journal of Organizational Behavior Percival, Cozzarin & Formaneck 2013 International Journal of Training and Development (IJTD) Ubeda-Garcia, Marco-Lajara, Sabater-Sempere & Garcia-Lillo
2013 IJHRM
Ubeda-Garcia, Marco-Lajara, Sabater-Sempere & Garcia-Lillo
2013 EJTD
Aragon & Sanz Valle 2013 IJHRM Ji, Liu, Zhu & Cai 2012 IJHRM Long, Wan Ismail & Mohd Amin 2012 IJHRM Sheehan 2012 IJHRM Adnan, Abdullah & Ahmad 2011 World Review of Business Research Costen & Salazar 2011 Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism Fisher & McPhail 2011 The Service Industries Journal Gardner, Wright & Moynihan 2011 Personnel Psychology Glaveli & Karassavidou * 2011 IJHRM Gurbuz & Mert * 2011 IJHRM Liao, Rice & Martin 2011 IJHRM Muñoz Castellanos & Salinero Martín 2011 IJHRM Park & Jacobs 2011 Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) Thang & Quang 2011 Research and Practice in Human Resource Management Chand 2010 IJHRM Ukenna, Ijeoma, Anionwu & Olise 2010 European Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Sciences Katou 2009 Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management Eerde, Tsang & Talbot 2008 IJHRM Chi, Wu & Lin 2008 IJHRM Gooderham, Perry and Ringdal 2008 IJHRM Sharma & Gadenne 2008 Journal of Strategic Marketing Ghebregiorgis and Karsten 2007 IJHRM Katou and Budhwar 2007 Thunderbird International Business Review Anderson, Cooper and Zhu 2007 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Chand & Katou 2007 Employee Relations Ballot, Fakhfakh and Taymaz 2006 British Journal of Industrial Relations Bell and Grushecky 2006 Journal of Safety Research Bernthal and Wellins 2006 Human Resource Planning Cho, Woods, Jang and Erdem 2006 International Journal of Hospitality Management Horgan and Mühlau 2006 IJHRM Katou and Budhwar 2006 IJHRM Kintana, Alonso, and Olaverri 2006 IJHRM Tzafrir 2006 Journal of Managerial Psychology Zheng, Morrison, and O'Neill 2006 IJHRM Zwick 2006 Industrial Relations Audea, Teo and Crawford 2005 IJHRM Faems, Sels, De Winne, and Maes 2005 IJHRM García 2005 IJHRM Mabey and Ramirez 2005 IJHRM Thang and Quang 2005 IJHRM Tzafrir 2005 IJHRM Ely 2004 Journal of Organizational Behavior Guerrero and Barraud-Didier 2004 IJHRM Hatch and Dyer 2004 Strategic Management Journal Ng and Siu 2004 IJHRM
37
Ahmad and Schroeder 2003 Journal of Operations Management Aragón-Sánchez et al. 2003 IJHRM Deng, Menguc, and Benson 2003 Thunderbird International Business Review Gelade and Ivery 2003 Personnel Psychology Paul and Anantharaman 2003 IJHRM Storey 2002 The International Journal of Management Science Ballot, Fakhfakh and Taymaz 2001 Labour Economics Barrett and O'Connell 2001 Industrial and Labor Relations Review Black and Lynch 2001 The Review of Economics and Statistics Cappelli and Neumark 2001 Industrial and Labor Relations Review Fey and Bjórkman 2001 Journal of International Business Studies Fey, Bjórkman, and Pavlovskaya 2000 IJHRM Huang 2000 IJHRM Khatri 2000 IJHRM Harel and Tzafrir 1999 Human Resource Management Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999 Group and Organization Management Wright, McCormick, Sherman, and McMahan 1999 IJHRM Bassi and McMurrer 1998 Training and Development Bassi and Van Buren 1998 American Society of Training and Development Meschi and Metais 1998 Management International Review Newkirk-Moore, and Bracker 1998 IJTD Ngo, Turban, Lau, and Lui 1998 IJHRM Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, and Gupta 1998 Academy of Management Journal Boon and van der Eijken 1997 Netherlands Offical Statistics - Research Paper D'Arcimoles 1997 Organization Studies Ichniowski, Shaq, and Prennushi 1997 The American Economic Review Murray and Raffaele 1997 HRDQ Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996 Journal of Applied Psychology Black and Lynch 1996 The American Economic Review Delaney and Huselid 1996 Academy of Management Journal Delery and Doty 1996 Academy of Management Journal Johnson 1996 Personnel Psychology Koch and McGrath 1996 Strategic Management Journal Martell and Carroll 1995 Human Resource Management Bartel 1994 Industrial Relations Holzer, Block, Cheatham, and Knott 1993 Industrial and Labor Relations Review Wiley 1991 Human Resource Planning Birley and Westhead 1990 Strategic Management Journal Russell, Terborg, and Powers 1985 Personnel Psychology Miron and McClelland 1979 California Management Review
38
Table 1. Reasons for the exclusions of papers from Tharneou et. al’s (2007) review
Author Journal/Book Details Reason for Exclusion
Bracker& Cohen (1992) Journal of Small Business
Strategy
Vol 3, p1-14 Failed attempts to get access to
paper
Fraser, Storey, Frankish
& Roberts (2002)
Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy
Vol 20 (2), p
211-233
Failed attempts to get access to
paper
Kalleberg and Moody
(1994)
American Behavioral Scientist Vol 37, p 948-
962
Failed attempts to get access to
paper
Lawler, Mohrman&
Ledford (1998)
The CEO report San Francisco ISBN:
10: 0787943975
Published in a book (Jossey-Bass)
Lui, Lau & Ngo (2004) Management International
Review
ISBN: 978-3-
409-12644-1
Published in a book (Springer)
Lyau&Pucel (1995) Performance Improvement
Quarterly
Vol 8(3), p 68-
79
Failed attempts to get access to
paper