Content uploaded by Antonio Aragón Sánchez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antonio Aragón Sánchez on Jul 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effects of training on business results
1
Antonio Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez, Isabel Barba-Arago
´
n and
Raquel Sanz-Valle
Abstract Currently, there is general agreement about the importance of training as a tool to
help companies in the development of sustainable competitive advantages based on their
human resources. However, the investment of companies in training activities is still very low.
Among other reasons, that is due to the fact that they do not evaluate the effects of training on
performance and therefore they do not know its economic impact for the company. There is
also a lack of academic research analysing that issue, mainly at the empirical level. This paper
studies empirically the effects of training on performance (effectiveness and profitability)
using a sample of 457 European SMEs (including Spanish companies).
1
Our results show
some evidence of significant relationships between training and performance.
Keywords Training; effectiveness; profitability; SMEs.
Introduction
At present, the business world is characterized, among other things, by an increasing
competitiveness, market globalization, continual technological advances and changes in
work organization; therefore, the survival of a company implies the prosecution of
sustainable competitive advantages. Theories placing the origin of these advantages
outside the company are now losing validity in favour of those centred on internal
elements, especially the theory of resources and capacities.
Among the internal resources which can be considered sources of competitive
advantage is the human element, mainly due to its intangible characteristics: knowledge,
skills and attitudes (Wright et al., 1994; Kamoche, 1996; Mueller, 1996; Barney and
Wright, 1998) and organizational knowledge (Bassi et al., 1998; Lee and Yang, 2000;
Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bollinger and Smith, 2001) are being given more and more
significance. Although all practices of personnel management are implied in the
development of these resources, training is the main activity in order to have qualified,
flexible and well-prepared employees (Bartel, 1994; Raghuram, 1994; MacDuffie and
Kochan, 1995) and to achieve the correct running of each stage of the process of
knowledge management (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bollinger and Smith, 2001).
Institutions, conscious of the strategic role of training, have been promoting this
aspect over the last decade. The European Union is funding ambitious projects by means
of the European Social Fund and, in Spain, the National Agreement on Continuing
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0958519032000106164
Antonio Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez, Facultad de Economia Y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia,
Campus Universitario de Espinando, 30100 Espinando, Murcia, Spain (tel: þ 34 968 363 795;
e-mail: aaragon@um.es). Isabel Barba-Arago
´
n, Facultad de Cienciao de la Empressa,
Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, No 50, 30203 Cartagena, Murcia,
Spain (tel: þ 34 968 325 789; e-mail: isabel.barba@upct.es). Raquel Sanz-Valle, Univerisdad de
Murcia (e-mail: raquel@um.es).
Int. J. of Human Resource Management 14:6 September 2003 956–980
Training (Acuerdo Nacional de Formacio
´
n Continua, ANFC)
2
has started a new age.
One of the main achievements of this agreement has been the creation of FORCEM,
3
the organization in charge of the management and distribution of funds and the execution
and accreditation of training activities (Calvo, 1997).
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. Training evaluation is not carried out in a professional manner, or it does not exist
at all in many companies, and the lack of this information makes it impossible either to
prove training value or to find reasons for its existence (Davidove and Schroeder, 1992;
Pineda, 1995: 123). When training is not evaluated, the investment and its effects cannot
be tested and resources can be wasted in inadequate activities (Foot and Hook, 1996: 183;
Go
´
mez-Mejı
´
a et al., 1996: 274). Sometimes, training evaluation is avoided because it is
considered an expensive and time-consuming process (Buckley and Caple, 1991: 185–6;
Go
´
mez-Mejı
´
a et al., 1996: 275). At other times, the reason is the lack of measurement
systems for determining the changes arisen from training (Werther and Davis, 1991: 161;
Sole
´
and Mirabet, 1997: 152).
The objective of this paper is, taking the above-mentioned situations into
consideration, to analyse the effects of training on business results. First, the theoretical
aspects related to training evaluation and the models proposed for its execution are
examined. Next, the empirical research carried out up to now is compiled and, from these
data, some research hypotheses are formulated. The last part of the paper includes an
empirical study carried out to test those hypotheses.
Review of theoretical literature
The success of training depends on the correct execution of all steps of the process:
previous analysis of training needs, development and implementation of an adequate
training plan and evaluation (Pineda, 1995: 33; Go
´
mez-Mejı
´
a et al., 1996: 253; Sole
´
and
Mirabet, 1997: 35, 63).
However, despite the significance of both the training needs analysis, which influences
the development, application and evaluation of training (McGehee and Thayer, 1961;
Agnaia, 1996; Gray and Hall, 1997; Al-Khayyat, 1998; Legare, 1999; Dickenson and
Blundell, 2000; Holton, 2000; Selmer, 2000) and the plan development and
implementation stage where the training characteristics are established and put into
practice (Buckley and Caple, 1991; Goldstein, 1993; Foot and Hook, 1996; Bee and Bee,
1997; Frazis et al., 1998, 2000), this study goes into the evaluation of training in greater
depth because this stage is the least studied of the whole process.
The existing literature proposes different models for carrying out training evaluation
(Kirkpatrick, 1997; Phillips, 1997; Hamblin, 1974; Tannenbaum and Woods, 1992;
Kaufman and Keller, 1994; Holton, 1996; Pineda, 1998). The one that Kirkpatrick
developed at the end of the 1950s, called the ‘Model of Four Levels’ or ‘Kirkpatrick’s
Model’,
4
can be highlighted. This is the most widely used by organizations and the most
widely referenced in studies about this subject due to its simple and practical ideas (Plant
and Ryan, 1992; Oberman, 1996; Alliger et al., 1997; Phillips, 1997: 44; O’Neill, 1998).
This model includes four levels that evaluate respectively four aspects of training.
The first level measures workers’ opinion and the degree of satisfaction with the training
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 957
activity (Kirkpatrick, 1997). This is the most frequently used type of evaluation due to
the ease of performance and the lack of experience in the assessment of other levels
(Plant and Ryan, 1992; Tannenbaum and Woods, 1992; Alliger et al., 1997; Nelson and
Dailey, 1998; Robinson and Robinson, 1998). The second level corresponds to learning
evaluation, that is, the extent to which workers have advanced in skills, knowledge or
attitude after the training activity (Oberman, 1996; Ramı
´
rez, 1997: 57; Kirkpatrick,
1999: 39). It assesses whether the training action has been correctly expressed, whether
the didactic aims have been achieved and to what extent (Ventosa, 1998). The third level
evaluates behaviour, focusing on the changes observed in performance after taking
training activities (Truelove, 1997: 154; Kirkpatrick, 1999: 20). The fourth and last level
evaluates the effects of training on business results: productivity increase, sales increase,
cost reduction, quality improvement or decrease in absenteeism rates and labour
turnover.
According to Kirkpatrick (1999: 59 –60), the fourth level is the most significant from
the organization’s point of view, since it checks whether training has fulfilled its goals
and whether organizational needs have been covered. Other authors also recommend the
evaluation of the impact of training on business results since training is considered an
investment and, therefore, the company must check that the expected return surpasses
the minimum necessary to justify training investment (Cascio, 1989: 67; Co
´
rdova et al.,
1993; Bee and Bee, 1997: 262).
Despite this fact, very few companies assess this fourth level (Plant and Ryan, 1992;
Shelton and Alliger, 1993), for different reasons. Among them, the difficulty and high
costs of collecting and interpreting data at this level and the lack of clear and direct
methods for measurement of results and comparison with the training action. A long-
term perspective is also required, making the unambiguous establishment of cause–
effect relationships difficult. The measurements of results usually refer to the whole
organization or to a department; therefore, it is not easy to identify the effects on just one
individual or a specific group. Finally, training is just one of a series of factors affecting
organizational performance (Kaufman and Keller, 1994; Parry, 1996; Bee and Bee, 1997:
257; Ventosa, 1998; Waagen, 1998; Kirkpatrick, 1999: 59 –60).
Even Kirkpatrick (1999: 64–5) highlights the complexity of training evaluation at the
fourth level, but he does not provide techniques for its performance. He just suggests
going down one or two levels in order to evaluate changes in behaviour, learning or both
(he even proposes using a positive result from satisfaction questionnaires as a basis), but
this does not seem an acceptable solution.
Other training evaluation models are also proposed in the literature, although most of
them build on Kirkpatrick’s. Some authors divide the fourth level into two different ones,
proposing models with five evaluation levels. Hamblin’s model (1974) follows this
pattern. He suggests a fourth level named ‘organization’, which tries to identify those
improvements in terms of productivity, quality or employees’ moral that are due to
training. The fifth level, ‘ultimate value’, would be measured as the effect of training on
overall organization performance in terms of profitability, survival or growth. Kaufman
and Keller (1994) also describe a five-level model. Their fourth level evaluates the
contribution of training to the benefits achieved by the company, and the fifth evaluates
the impact on society. The fourth level of Phillips’ model (1997) measures results
achieved by the organization, like quality or customer satisfaction, while the fifth
compares costs and benefits (ROI calculation).
Based on these models, this paper tries to contribute to the evaluation of training in
economic terms. This is not an easy task since, although the detailed knowledge of costs
is not problematic,
5
it is quite difficult to measure benefits. Although training provides
958 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
many advantages to the company (economic, social and personal), the precise estimation
of its monetary effects is not possible in many cases (Buckley and Caple, 1991: 208;
Co
´
rdova et al., 1993; Kirkpatrick, 1999: 63). Following Hamblin (1974) and Phillips
(1997), this paper also proposes the division of Kirkpatrick’s fourth level into two,
distinguishing two results’ measurements: effectiveness of the company and profitability.
Only the translation of costs into economic terms is needed for assessing
effectiveness. Therefore, this procedure is applied to those cases where it is difficult or
impossible to express training benefits, although identifiable, in monetary terms (Buckley
and Caple, 1991: 208; Ramı
´
rez, 1997: 116). This analysis tries to evaluate those effects
of training on the company that are significant but very difficult to quantify. It could be
also used for comparing training programmes with the same goals but different methods,
and for comparing the effectiveness of one action carried out several times in order to
measure the influence of specific modifications (Jackson, 1989: 99).
The estimation of training profitability is applied to those cases where costs and
benefits can be quantified in monetary terms (Jackson, 1989: 98; Buckley and Caple,
1991: 208). This analysis allows the comparison of training programmes with different
goals in order to give priority to certain training activities. It can be also used for
comparing the results of workers under training with those of the control group in order
to decide the allocation of available resources (Ramı
´
rez, 1997: 110).
The next section includes an analysis of the empirical works about this subject with a
view to find the possible applications of the methodologies discussed.
Review of empirical research and formulation of hypotheses
The above-mentioned difficulties in evaluating the impact of training on results explain
the paucity of empirical research on this subject. Most studies are located in North
America and they are very recent, a sign indicating that we are facing a new research area
(CEDEFOP, 1998). In Europe, empirical studies are even fewer. Although most of them
are descriptive and case-study based (as in the projects Price Waterhouse Cranfield and
Promoting Added Value through the Evaluation of Training), in recent years some
attempts to go into this topic in depth have been carried out (D’Arcimoles, 1997; Barrett
and O’Connell, 2001).
This paper compiles and analyses those studies that examine the effect of training on
results. Due to their variety and in order to make the analysis easier, they have been
classified according to the types of measurements they use, both for training and results.
Classification is shown in Table 1.
It is worth mentioning that, although there are positive effects of training on
organizational results, there is no clear cost-benefit relationship allowing the assessment
of training effectiveness or profitability. However, the fact that very little research has
been carried out about this area must be pointed out. One reason for this situation is the
difficulty in finding a reliable indicator of training incidence, a fact even more
complicated due to the existence of returns that are not only tangible, but also intangible.
The heterogeneity of criteria among authors when evaluating these effects must be also
added to this complex situation.
These studies have not found a reliable measurement of returns on training, but they
have revealed very interesting conclusions. As a general rule, training has a positive
effect on productivity (Holzer et al., 1993; Bartel, 1994; Black and Lynch, 1996; Barron
and Berger, 1999; Klein and Weaver, 2000; Barrett and O’Connell, 2001), quality
(Kidder and Rouiller, 1997; Murray and Raffaele, 1997), staff turnover (Huselid, 1995)
and financial results (D’Arcimoles, 1997). The studies on the effects of the combination
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 959
Table 1 Empirical research classification
Training Results
Effectiveness Profitability
Organizational
perfomance
Quality Productivity Productivity Quality Worker
rates
Financial
results
Firm image;
( perceived
organizational
performance)
Customer
satisfaction
Productivity Sales Scrap rate Staff
turnover
Profitability
Perceived market
performance
Product/service
quality
Wages Monetary value
of scrap
Tobin’s Q
Labour hours per
product
% products that
meet specific quality
standards
Production-line
uptime
% good pieces
Value added per
worker
Subjective
measures
Perceptions
of training
Training
emphasis
Russell et al.
(1985)
Arthur (1994) Arthur (1994) Arthur
(1994)
Delery and
Doty (1996)
Generic training
importance
Delaney and
Huselid (1996)
Effectiveness
of training
programmes
Extensive and
formalized
grade training
Objective
measures
Amount of
training
Training hours/
employee
Kidder and
Rouiller
(1997)
Kidder and
Rouiller
(1997)
Lynch (1992) Holzer et al.
(1993)
Huselid
(1995)
Huselid (1995)
Initial year of
training
Bartel (1994)
Number of
classes taken
Bishop (1994)
960 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Table 1 – continued
Training Results
Effectiveness Profitability
Organizational
perfomance
Quality Productivity Productivity Quality Worker
rates
Financial
results
Firm image;
( perceived
organizational
performance)
Customer
satisfaction
Productivity Sales Scrap rate Staff
turnover
Profitability
Perceived market
performance
Product/service
quality
Wages Monetary value
of scrap
Tobin’s Q
Labour hours per
product
% products that
meet specific quality
standards
Production-line
uptime
% good pieces
Value added per
worker
Number of
courses taken
Huselid (1995)
Barrett and
O’Connell (2001)
Trained
employees
Number of
employees
trained
Russell et al.
(1985)
Russell et al. (1989) Ichniowski et al.
(1997)
% employees
trained
Delaney and
Huselid (1996)
Black and
Lynch (1996)
Murray and Raffaele
(1997)
High/low
training
Ichniowski et al.
(1997)
Barrett and
O’Connell (2001)
Training cost Direct cost Bartel (1994) Murray and
Raffaele (1997)
D’Arcimoles
(1997)
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 961
Table 1 – continued
Training Results
Effectiveness Profitability
Organizational
perfomance
Quality Productivity Productivity Quality Worker
rates
Financial
results
Firm image;
( perceived
organizational
performance)
Customer
satisfaction
Productivity Sales Scrap rate Staff
turnover
Profitability
Perceived market
performance
Product/service
quality
Wages Monetary value
of scrap
Tobin’s Q
Labour hours per
product
% products that
meet specific quality
standards
Production-line
uptime
% good pieces
Value added per
worker
Total cost Bishop (1994)
Cost per trainee Lyau and Pucel
(1995)
D’Arcimoles (1997)
Barrett and
O’Connell (2001)
Types of
training
activities
Dummy
variables
Lynch (1992)
Hotchkiss (1993)
Black and
Lynch (1996)
Barron and
Berger (1999)
Barrett and
O’Connell (2001)
Training/no
training
Dummy
variables
Delaney and
Huselid (1996)
Bartel (1994)
962 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
of human resource practices show that training, together with other activities positively
affects results and is associated with a productivity increase and a staff turnover decrease
(Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Ichniowski et al., 1997). Likewise, different types of
training have different effects on business results.
The final point, worth emphasizing, is that very few articles express results in
monetary units. This contrasts with the present increase of pressure on organizational
goals, which means that the company needs to identify and measure its results in this way.
In view of this situation, the following research hypotheses can be formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Companies with higher investments in employees’ training will obtain better
results in terms of effectiveness than those with lower investments.
Hypothesis 2: Companies with higher investments in employees’ training will obtain better
results in terms of profitability than those with lower investments.
Hypothesis 3: Investment in training will have delayed effects over time.
Hypothesis 4: Different types of training will have different effects on the results (both in
terms of effectiveness and profitability) obtained by the company.
Empirical study: methodology
Sample and information collection
The hypotheses formulated have been tested using data obtained from a questionnaire
sent to 6,000 SMEs
6
in some countries of the European Union: the United Kingdom,
Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Spain. The questionnaire was sent to the company
manager through a postal survey, including an introductory letter and a stamped envelope
for the answer, between November 1997 and March 1998.
Of the 555 questionnaires received (a response rate of approximately 9 per cent), those
with errors or from companies not falling within the 10–250 workers parameter were
excluded. Therefore, a total of 457 questionnaires were valid. Nevertheless, firms not
answering all questions have been included in the sample, so certain analyses use a lower
number of cases than others.
Measurements
Two types of variables are measured to test whether training affects business
results – training and results variables.
1 Regarding training, the survey collected information about:
*
Training methods. Lynch (1992) distinguishes three methods: on-the-job training,
training as apprentice and off-the-job training. This study is more detailed;
it distinguishes seven methods. Variables (0.1) were used for the measurements.
*
Training characteristics. The degree of agreement with the following
statements related to training activities was measured using 5-point Likert-
type scales (1 ¼ total disagreement; 5 ¼ total agreement): (1) ‘they are
isolated activities not included in a training plan’, (2) ‘they try to transmit
specific skills with a direct application to the job’ and (3) ‘the company
co-operates in training with other companies’.
*
Training activities. The survey asked information about eight specific
training activities.
7
Hotchkiss (1993) or Black and Lynch (1996) use
variables (0.1), as we do here, for the type of training provided. However,
they analyse a more reduced variety of activities.
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 963
*
Effort in training. We used different indicators to measure this variable:
(a) Number of training hours per worker. Holzer (1993), Huselid (1995) and
Kidder and Rouiller (1997) have used this measurement.
(b) Percentage of trained workers.Russellet al. (1985), Black and Lynch
(1996), Delaney and Huselid (1996) and Murray and Raffaele (1997)
have used the number of workers who have received training in absolute
or relative terms.
(c) Percentage of training hours during working hours.
(d) Total expenditure on training made by the company. Bartel (1994),
Bishop (1994), Lyau and Pucel (1995), D’Arcimoles (1997) and Murray
and Raffaele (1997) included these data in their researches.
(e) Percentage of subsidized expenditure.
(f) Participation, or not, of employees as trainers.
For the variables included in the section effort in training, we used data for years 1996
and 1997, while for the rest of variables we used a joint measurement for both years.
2 As it was mentioned in the literature review regarding business results, two different
results’ measurements are going to be taken into consideration: effectiveness and
profitability.
2.1. Effectiveness. This information was obtained using eighteen variables
measured with 5-point Likert-type scales (1 ¼ ‘nothing’ to 5 ¼ ‘much’). The
company was asked its opinion about certain benefits provided by the training
developed during the last two years (1996 and 1997). This method was used by
authors like Russell et al. (1985), Delaney and Huselid (1996) and Kidder and
Rouiller (1997) to assess training effects.
Since effectiveness was measured using eighteen variables, factor analysis was
applied in order to study similarities between them and to reduce their number.
Results of this analysis are shown in Table 2. As can be observed, three factors
with an explained variance of 59.7 per cent were obtained.
The three factors represent three dimensions of training effectiveness. The first
one has been named ‘employees’ involvement’, the second ‘human resource
indicators’ and the third dimension ‘quality’. From these factors, three
variables, which can identify training effectiveness, were defined. They have
been obtained through the mean of the variables of each factor, excluding the
cases that lacked the answer to any of these variables. To verify the reliability of
the new scales, their Cronbach’s alpha has been calculated (Table 2). One of the
variables excluded during the performance of the factor analysis – ‘productivity
increase’ – must nevertheless be stressed. As was observed in the empirical
literature review (Kidder and Rouiller, 1997), it is a very significant factor in the
study of training results and has been included as a fourth dimension.
2.2. Profitability. Since business results are a multifaceted phenomenon, we used
three different measurements related to profitability (information for the years
1996 and 1997 is available for all of them):
– Sales volume. Russell et al. (1985), Bartel (1994), Huselid (1995), Lyau
and Pucel (1995) and Black and Lynch (1996) use this variable in their
studies.
– Benefits before interest and taxes.
– Profitability.
8
Huselid (1995) and Delery and Doty (1996) use these data
in their studies as a measurement of business results.
964 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Table 2 Factor analysis
Variables Factor 1
40.0%
Factor 2
11.6%
Factor 3
8.2%
Dimension Cronbach’s
a
15 Better capacity for team work 0.8380 0.12690 0.17893 EMPLOYEES’ INVOLVEMENT
a
¼ 0:8592 N ¼ 289
16 More identity and engagement of
employee with the company
0.81753 0.17162 0.20084
14 More capacity to resolve problems and
adapt to changes
0.77751 0.06703 0.21343
11 Motivation enhancement of employees 0.73783 0.15576 0.13458
18 Better relations with other workers 0.60128 0.49517 0.10194
13 Staff absenteeism or turnover reduction 0.22179 0.77050 0.26610 HUMAN RESOURCE INDICATORS
a
¼ 0:7356 N ¼ 269
12 Reduction of number of working
accidents
0.06887 0.76993 0.33011
10 Reduction of external recruiting of
services
0.08887 0.63993 0.02021
17 More employment stability of trained
workers
0.42599 0.53057 0.16235
8 Implantation of quality systems 0.08937 0.00196 0.72492 QUALITY
a
¼ 0:7320 N ¼ 264
2 Better products/services quality 0.35248 0.03087 0.67972
5 Reduction of customers’ complaints 0.22999 0.28781 0.62932
4 Reduction of production costs,
abragements, refuses, breakdowns, etc.
0.14994 0.43714 0.58193
6 Reduction of delivery time/completion of
service
0.10485 0.39688 0.56150
Notes
Determinant of correlation matrix ¼ 0.0031617.
Kaiser–Meyer – Olkin measure of sampling adequacy ¼ 0.89659.
Bartlett test of sphericity ¼ 0.00000 (significance).
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 965
Some variables included in the analyses necessary to test the formulated hypotheses have
been recoded. Therefore, data for variables expressed in monetary units, like sales
volume, monthly average wage of the staff and the total expenditure on training, have
been homogenized into one currency to make analyses comparable. Since these data
were expressed in the currency in circulation of each country in the study, the values
were transformed to ECU.
9
To avoid false conclusions due to the use of some variables in absolute terms (the size
of the company would not be taken into consideration), the variables have been used in
relative terms. Therefore, the variables ‘number of employees involved in training
activities’ and ‘total number of hours of training’ have been divided by the total number
of employees, and the variable ‘total expenditure on training activities’ has been divided
by the sales volume.
Statistical analysis
The first step in testing the hypotheses formulated was the analysis of bivariate
correlations between the variables implied in the study. Next, linear regression analysis
by the ‘stepwise’ method, the most widely used and accepted in this kind of work,
was carried out. The dependent variables in the regression models are the above-
mentioned results’ measurements, of both effectiveness and profitability. The
independent variables are those related to training. A series of control variables that
can influence dependent variables were also included.
10
The typified residual was calculated for each regression, and whether the requirements
of normal distribution, homoscedasticity and independence are fulfilled was checked
(Uriel et al., 1990: 54 –9; Ferra
´
n, 1996: 195–202). The residuals of the effectiveness
model met all requirements. However, the residuals of the profitability model did not
meet the first two requirements, a problem solved by the application of the naperian
logarithm to the dependent variables (Ferra
´
n, 1996: 197– 8).
Likewise, possible delayed effects were analysed for the profitability model, in particular,
to see whether the training performed in 1996 influenced the results for 1997.
11
Empirical study: results
The study of bivariate correlations
12
shows the existence of some associations between
training activities and business results, although not all training variables are related to
the same result measurements. Among the methods applied, on-the-job training and
training inside the company with in-house trainers can be highlighted since they are
positively related to most effectiveness and profitability measurements. On the one hand,
training inside the company with outside trainers shows a positive correlation only to
involvement and quality; on the other hand, short outside courses show a negative effect
regarding profitability.
Contrary to expectation, the less planned training activities are, the better the human
resource and quality indicators.
It is worth mentioning that training activities carried out are significantly related only
to effectiveness, but not to profitability. Business policy and management, market
knowledge, group working and job safety are the activities with a highest number of
significant relationships, and they are all positive. Finally, the few significant correlations
found between the variables ‘effort in training’ and ‘results’ must be mentioned.
Next, the results of the regression analysis are commented on. Results are divided into
those using effectiveness as dependent variable and those related to profitability.
966 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Training effectiveness
Regarding effectiveness (Table 3), the fact that on-the-job training given by in-house
trainers is the method with the highest positive influence on results must be highlighted.
This positive effect on the indicators of human resources, quality and productivity of the
firm can be due to the fact that this kind of training presents less transference problems: it
does not interrupt the work, it develops the workers’ precise skills and promotes an
environment of learning. In general, in-house training has a positive effect, while training
outside the firm, like short external courses or distance training, usually shows a negative
impact, specially on human resource indicators, maybe due to the fact that employees are
less committed to and, therefore, less involved in the external training.
Likewise, when training activities aim to transmit specific skills, there is an
improvement in the indicators of firm quality and productivity. Obviously, workforce
specialization decreases the error rate in the job and increases effectiveness, although it
involves renouncing flexibility.
Paradoxically, when the company sets up isolated training activities, there is a positive
impact on productivity. This contradicts the conclusions obtained in the theoretical
review, and it probably indicates that the lack of planning is not a problem in the short
term.
The effects of training activities are different depending on the dimension they are
related to. Activities related to safety on the job and business policy and management can
be pointed out due to their positive effect on several dimensions.
Regarding how the effort in training carried out by the firm affects the results, it can be
observed that the employees’ involvement is increased when employees act as trainers.
This may be due to the fact that the establishment of a teacher–learner relationship,
instead of the traditional superior-underling relation, improves the relationships with
workmates, creates a more favourable disposition to the teamwork and increases
employees’ motivation and commitment (both teacher’s and learner’s) to the firm. An
increase in training hours per employee, however, has a negative impact on involvement.
There are two possible explanations: 1) that the employee is, at first, stimulated to
transfer all he learns, but, when training is intensified and a greater effort is needed, he
loses interest; 2) the increase in the number of training hours implies an excessive
interruption of work.
The negative effect of the percentage of subsidized expenditure must be also
emphasized. Increase in the proportion of expenditure that is subsidized has a negative
impact on quality. This could be due, on the one hand, to the fact that firms do not pay
attention to training when they do not pay it, and, therefore, they could be undertaking
activities that do not meet their needs. On the other hand, the negative impact could be
due to the fact that the company asks for grants particularly in crisis moments when
results are generally worse. It can be also highlighted that higher training expenditure is
translated into a productivity increase.
The final point worth emphasizing is that the higher the competitiveness the company
faces, the higher the training effectiveness in terms of quality and HR indicators of
improvement.
Training profitability
As far as profitability is concerned (Table 4), and regarding training methods, there is a
similar trend to that obtained when talking about effectiveness. Thus, while training
inside the company (on-the-job with external or internal trainers) positively affects the
sales volume, benefit before taxes and profitability, training outside the company
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 967
Table 3 Training effectiveness
1
Independent variables Involvement HR indicators Quality Productivity
1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997
Training methods
*On-the job training, given
by in-house trainers
– – – 0.2175** 0.3582*** 0.4005*** 0.2550*** 0.3640***
*Inside the company, given
by in-house trainers
––––––––
*Inside the company, given
by outside trainers
0.2207** 0.1925** – – – – – –
*Short outside courses
(5 or less days)
– – 0.2452*** 2 0.2090** – – – –
*Outside training programme
(6 or more days)
––––––––
*Granting of leave to
do training activities
– – – 0.1885** – – – –
*Distance training – – 2 0.2232** 2 0.2337** – – – –
Training characteristics
*Isolated actions not included
in a training plan
– – – – – – 0.2577*** 0.2136**
*Transmission of specific skills – – – – 0.2290*** 0.1821** 0.20718** –
*Co-operation with other companies – – – – – – – –
Training activities
*Business policy and management – – 0.1762* – – – 0.3170*** 0.2775***
*Sales techniques and customer
attention
––––––––
*Market and customer knowledge – – – – – – – –
*Product, productive process, maintenance,
total quality
– – – 0.1764* – – – –
*Information/computer science – – 0.2100** – – – – –
968 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Table 3 – continued
Independent variables Involvement HR indicators Quality Productivity
1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997
*Languages – – – – 0.2654*** 0.2545*** – –
*Group working – – – – – – – –
*Job safety 0.2997*** 0.2090** 0.3862*** 0.3540*** 0.3493*** 0.3075*** – –
Effort in training
*% trained workers – – – – – – – –
*Number of training hours per worker 2 0.1583* 0.2576*** – – – – – –
*Total expenditure on training – – – – – – 0.2178** 0.1821**
*% subsidized expenditure by
public institutions
––––2 0.1410* – – –
*% training hours during
working hours
––––––––
*Participation of employees as trainers 0.3855*** 0.3765*** – – – – – –
Control variables
*Family company – – – 0.1591* – – – –
*Industrial sector – – – – – – – –
*Industrial market – – – – – – – –
*Competitiveness measure/grade – – 0.2178** 0.2551*** 0.3349*** 0.3956*** – –
*Introduction of new products/services – – – – – – – –
*Introduction of new technology – – – – – – – –
*Introduction of new organization systems – – 0.1795** – – – – –
Adjusted r square 0.3451 0.3554 0.3298 0.3110 0.4806 0.4506 0.2548 0.2662
F 13.1209 12.9931 7.4665 5.9091 14.2603 14.4484 7.7687 9.5263
Significance 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Number of cases 93 88 93 88 87 83 100 95
Notes
***: p # 0.01; **: p # 0.05; *: p # 0.1.
1
Standardized regression coefficients.
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 969
(like leave for participating in training activities or distance training) usually has a
negative impact. This can be due, among other reasons, to the flexibility of working hours
required by the employee and the need to substitute for him, to the fact that the activities
are standard training activities for the whole market, which are not suited to the firm’s
needs, to the fact that the competencies acquired outside the company are easily forgotten
if they are not immediately employed or to the difficulties choosing the right courses
among the great existing variety.
Consistent with the theoretical review, which establishes that training must be planned
to be successful (Pineda, 1995: 33), and in contradiction to the results obtained for
effectiveness, training activities developed in isolation, that is, not within a plan, affect
sales negatively.
It can be also observed that the transmission of specific skills results in a sales
increase. As has previously been mentioned, the most skilled employees do much more
work and with a higher quality, which is, therefore, translated into an increase of the
company sales.
An aspect not significantly affecting effectiveness, but which positively affects benefit
and profitability is co-operation in training with other companies. This can be due to a
cost sharing
13
or to the fact that a company benefits from the others’ experience. It must
be mentioned that the contents of training activities have a virtually null incidence of
effect on business results.
As regards the variables of training effort, the expenditure on training negatively
affects sales and benefit, that is to say, the more the resources dedicated, the worse the
results. This may be due to the delayed effects. When training activities are implemented,
their costs are higher than the benefits, which are later generated over some years.
14
The increase in training hours during working hours implies an increase in the benefit
before taxes, maybe due to the fact that employees prefer to take advantage of training
provided during working hours rather than to make an additional effort outside the
workday, or to the fact that the training outside the company implies higher costs mainly
because employees do not participate in the activities unless those hours are paid as
overtime hours. On the other side, an increase in the percentage of trained workers
positively affects the sales volume. As it was also observed when analysing
effectiveness, an increase in the percentage of the expenditure on training that is
subsidized has a negative impact on profitability. Finally, an increase in the average
number of training hours received by an employee causes a decrease in the sales, maybe
due to the reduction in the number of working hours.
Data obtained in relation to the possible delayed effect of training performed during
year 1996 on the results of 1997 show similar relationships to those previously observed,
although the number of variables implied is lower. Thus, from the variables related to the
effort in training, a positive impact by the increased percentage of trained employees in
1996 on sales is observed in 1997.
The following conclusions regarding the formulated hypothesis can be derived from
the foregoing results.
As far as hypothesis 1 is concerned, there are signs, although reduced (since this is
confirmed only for the dimension of productivity), that companies making higher
investments in employees’ training, in particular, those making greater expenditure,
obtain better results in terms of effectiveness than those making lower investments, a fact
consistent with the conclusions obtained in the papers of Russell et al. (1985), Delaney
and Huselid (1996), Kidder and Rouiller (1997), Barron and Berger (1999) and Klein and
Weaver (2000).
970 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Table 4 Training profitability
1
Independent variables Sales Benefits before interest and taxes Sales profitability
1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997
Training methods
* On-the job training,
given by in-house
trainers
– – – – 0.1761* – 0.1754* 0.2671** 0.3070***
* Inside the company,
given by in-house
trainers
– – – 0.3069*** 0.1641* 0.2216** – – –
* Inside the company,
given by outside
trainers
0.3200*** 0.2828*** 0.3359*** 0.2128** 0.3060*** 0.2640*** – – –
* Short outside courses
(5 or less days)
–– –– –– –– –
* Outside training
programme (6 or
more days)
0.1534* 0.1595* – – – – – – –
* Granting of leave to
do training activities
0.2734*** 2 0.2548*** 2 0.3683*** 2 0.2433** 2 0.2944*** 2 0.3374*** – – –
* Distance training – – – 2 0.2398** – 2 0.2199** – 2 0.1781* 2 0.2648***
Training
characteristics
* Isolated actions not
include in a training
plan
2 0.1569* 2 0.1706* – – – – – – –
* Transmission of
specific skills
0.2132** 0.2104** 0.2351*** – – – – – –
* Co-operation with
other companies
– – – 0.3120*** 0.3083*** 0.2819** – 0.2512** 0.2329**
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 971
Table 4 – continued
Independent variables Sales Benefits before interest and taxes Sales profitability
1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997
Training activities
* Business policy and
management
–– –– –– –– –
* Sales techniques and
customer attention
–– –2 0.2296** 2 0.2691*** 2 0.244*** – – 2 0.2123**
* Market and client/
customer knowledge
–– –– –– –– –
* Product, productive
process; maintenance,
total quality
–– –– –– –– –
* Information/computer
science
–– –– –– –– –
* Languages – 0.1853** – – – – – – 2 0.1690*
* Group working – – – – – – – – –
* Job safety – – – – – – – – –
Effort in training
* % trained workers in
1996
0.1697* – 0.1686* – – – – – –
* % trained workers in
1997
– 0.1522* – – – – – – –
* Number of training
hours per worker in
1996
–– –– –– –– –
* Number of training
hours per worker in
1997
– 2 0.2980*** – – – – – – –
* Total expenditure on
training in 1996
2 0.1952** – – – – – – – –
972 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Table 4 – continued
Independent variables Sales Benefits before interest and taxes Sales profitability
1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997
* Total expenditure on
training in 1997
–– ––2 0.2197** – – – –
% subsidizes expenditure
by public institutions in
1996
–– –– ––2 0.2092* – –
* % subsidizes expenditure
by public institutions in
1997
–– –– –– –– –
* % training hours during
working hours in 1996
– – – 0.1633* – – – – –
* % training hours during
working hours in 1996
–– –– –– –– –
* Participation of employees
as trainers
–– –– –– –– –
Control variables
* Family company – – – – – – – – –
* Industrial sector – – – – – – – – –
* Industrial market 0.1647* 0.2099** – – – – – – –
* Competitiveness measure/
grade
–– –2 0.2047** – – 2 0.2996*** – –
* Introduction of new
products/services
–– –– –– –– –
* Introduction of new
technology
–– –– –– –– –
* Introduction of new
organization systems
–– –– –– –– –
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 973
Table 4 – continued
Independent variables Sales Benefits before interest and taxes Sales profitability
1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997
Adjusted r square 0.3197 0.3771 0.2573 0.3247 0.3181 0.2901 0.1314 0.1157 0.1825
F 6.8735 7.4577 9.6615 5.8088 6.2653 6.6528 5.0355 4.4461 4.7054
Significance 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 0.0062 0.0008
Number of cases 101 97 101 81 80 84 81 80 84
Notes
***: p # 0.01; **: p # 0.05; *: p # 0.1.
1
Standardized regression coefficients.
974 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Regarding hypothesis 2, there is evidence that companies making higher investments
in their employees’ training, in particular, those training a higher number of employees in
relative terms, obtain better results in terms of profitability than those making lower
investment, findings coincident with the results in papers like those of Bartel (1994),
Bishop (1994), Huselid (1995) and D’Arcimoles (1997).
For hypothesis 3, there is evidence that investment in training has positive delayed
effects over time, a conclusion also reached by studies like those of D’Arcimoles (1997)
and Murray and Raffaele (1997). However, two aspects must be pointed out: the low
influence of the training effort made in 1996 on the results of 1997 and the limitation
implied by the fact that only one year has been included as delay.
Finally, in relation to hypothesis 4, it is accepted that different types of training have
different impacts on the results obtained by the company (in terms of both effectiveness
and profitability), a conclusion consistent with the results obtained in papers like those of
Lynch (1992), Hotchkiss (1993), Black and Lynch (1996) and Barrett and O’ Connell
(2001).
Conclusions
The increasing interest that firms have been showing over recent years in employees and
in practices related to their management, especially training, can be explained by the
general acceptance of the fact that human resources and organizational knowledge are, at
present, two of the main sources of sustainable competitive advantages for the company.
However, the significant role of training in the company is not supported by an adequate
level of investment, mainly due to the ignorance of the contribution of this activity to
goal achievement.
This work examines the main models of training evaluation explained in the literature,
especially that of Kirkpatrick, who proposes a four-level evaluation. The fourth level is
the most interesting for companies, since it determines the impact of training on results.
However, it is practically not applied to the business world because of the technical
difficulty of its evaluation and the lack of research centred on the development
of a methodology which can be put into practice. This paper stresses the necessity of
researching the effect of training at this level and suggests the convenience
of distinguishing two results dimensions within it: effectiveness and profitability.
Empirical studies analysing the influence of training on business results have also
been compiled, classified and analysed. There is little, and only very recent, research in
this field. Although the studies are very heterogeneous and it is difficult to generalize,
most of them conclude that training positively affects productivity, quality, labour
turnover and financial results, and that different types of training have different impacts
on business results.
A series of hypothesis has been formulated from the theoretical and empirical
literature, and these have been contrasted using a sample of 457 European SMEs. The
hypotheses are not totally confirmed, but some interesting conclusions can be drawn.
Training performed inside the company with outside trainers affects several results
measurements positively, but on-the-job training influences an even higher number of
results positively. These data are also confirmed by the data obtained regarding training
characteristics, according to which training transferring specific and job-related skills
improves business results.
Specific training activities do not influence tangible results, at least in the one-year
period under consideration. However, they influence effectiveness, but the effects are
different depending on the training activity.
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 975
Data from the study of the effect of the effort in training on business results through
objective indicators are not conclusive, and even contradictory.
Therefore, although signs of the positive influence of training activities on business
results have been found, the hypotheses formulated cannot be totally accepted. However,
the fact that this study focuses on SMEs must be stressed. Although this sample was
selected because SMEs represent a very high proportion of businesses, their human
resource management and their training management are less developed, and this may
explain why few relationships between training and business results have been found. The
fact that the SMEs in the sample belong to five European countries could explain the lack
of more conclusive results. However, it must be mentioned that the descriptive analyses
carried out have allowed the verification of similarities between the firms from the five
countries. In particular, in all those countries there is a prevalence of family-owned and
industrial companies. A high percentage of these firms are facing strong competition and,
in general, they are firms which have experienced an increase of their market share during
recent years. This study has showed that the training performed in a previous period could
affect the results of the following period. However, we have considered a one-year delay
and the study does not include those training effects in the long term.
The fact that the effect of human resource actions, including training, on business
results depends on many other factors must be also taken into account. Among these
factors we find the joint application of those activities and consistency among them,
since, as Brown et al. (1993), Dyer and Reeves (1995: 657) and Wood (1996: 41) point
out, the internal fit between personnel practices can result in synergic effects. Therefore,
and in our opinion, the previous study of each practice of the human resource system is
needed. Regarding this subject, studies like this one could be a useful reference for future
research adopting the systemic perspective when analysing the effect of human resource
practices on business results.
Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this paper makes interesting contributions.
First, it is one of the few approaches to the study of the training-business results
relationships from the empirical point of view. It is also one of the first studies of this
kind in Europe. Second, this study finds signs of positive effects of training on the
company. Finally, it proposes a methodology for the empirical study of the effect of
training on results that can be used in later researches, and it points out some aspects that
must be included in those future papers in order to avoid some limitations of this study,
like not having considered effects delayed by longer than one year.
Notes
1 This study is placed within the project Economic Learning in Training for
Enterprises (ELITE), and is funded by the European Commission within the
programme ‘Leonardo da Vinci’, which includes research about different aspects of
business management and, especially, those related to training evaluation.
2 Agreement signed in December 1992 by business and trade union organizations and
revised in 1996. The second Agreement came into force on 1 January 1997 and ended
on 31 December 2000.
3 Foundation for Continuing Training (Fundacio
´
n para la Formacio
´
n Continua).
A non-profit private national joint entity constituted on 19 May 1993.
4 Between November 1959 and February 1960, he published in Training and
Development (known at that time as Journal of the American Society of Training
Directors) a series of four articles under the title ‘Techniques for evaluating training
programs’.
976 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
5 Only a detailed control of the expenditure already made is necessary, as well as the
maintenance of the procedure established for this control over time.
6 In particular, to companies with between 10 and 250 employees.
7 The different activities performed are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
8 To avoid confusion, the companies were asked to calculate these data following the
expression: (Benefit before taxes/sales)*100.
9 This operation was made using the average cash exchange rate of December 1997,
according to the Statistical Bulletin of the National Bank of Spain.
10 Control variables are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
11 This analysis cannot be carried out for effectiveness, since only one aggregate
measure for both years is available.
12 Data available from the authors on request.
13 In this case, the fact that the variable is significantly positive for benefit before taxes
and profitability but not for sales could be explained.
14 This study includes only a one-year delay.
References
Agnaia, A.A. (1996) ‘Assessment of Management Training Needs and Selection for Training: The
Case of Libyan Companies’, International Journal of Manpower, 17(3): 31–52.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001) ‘Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues’, MIS Quarterly, 25(1):
107– 36.
Al-Khayyat, R. (1998) ‘Training and Development Needs Assessment: A Practical Model for
Partner Institutes’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(1): 18 –28.
Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997) ‘A Meta-
Analysis of the Relations among Training Criteria’, Personnel Psychology, 50: 341 –58.
Arthur, J.B. (1994) ‘Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and
Turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 670– 87.
Barney, J.B. and Wright, P.M. (1998) ‘On Becoming a Strategic Partner: The Role of Human
Resources in Gaining Competitive Advantage’, Human Resource Management, 37(1): 31 –46.
Barrett, A. and O’Connell, P.J. (2001) ‘Does Training Generally Work? The Returns to
In-Company Training’, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 54(3): 647–63.
Barron, J.M. and Berger, M.C. (1999) ‘Do Workers Pay for On-The-Job Training?’, Journal of
Human Resources, 34(2): 235– 53.
Bartel, A.P. (1994) ‘Productivity Gains from the Implementation of Employee Training Programs’,
Industrial Relations, 33(4): 411– 25.
Bassi, L.J., Cheney, S. and McMurrer, D. (1998) ‘A Common Standard for Measuring Training
Results’, Training & Development, 52(3): 10– 1.
Bee, F. and Bee, R. (1997) Training Needs Analysis and Evaluation. London: Institute of Personnel
and Development.
Bishop, J.H. (1994) ‘The Impact of Previous Training on Productivity and Wages’. In Lynch, L.
(ed.) Training and the Private Sector: International Comparisons. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Black, S. and Lynch, L. (1996) ‘Human Capital Investments and Productivity’, American Economic
Review, 86(2): 263– 7.
Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D. (2001) ‘Managing Organizational Knowledge as a Strategic Asset’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1): 8– 18.
Brown, C., Reich, M. and Stern, D. (1993) ‘Becoming a High-Performance Work Organization:
The Role of Security, Employee Involvement and Training’, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 4(2): 247– 75.
Buckley, R. and Caple, J. (1991) La formacio
´
n: Teorı
´
a and pra
´
ctica. Madrid: Dı
´
az de Santos.
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 977
Calvo Manzano, A. (1997) ‘La formacio
´
n en la empresa espan
˜
ola: Balance de una de
´
cada’, Capital
Humano, 100: 14– 20.
Cascio, W.F. (1989) ‘Using Utility Analysis to Assess Training Outcomes’. In Goldstein, I.L. (ed.)
Training and Development in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, and associates,
pp. 63– 88.
CEDEFOP (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) (1998) Exploring the
Returns to Continuing Vocational Training in Enterprises: A Review of Research Within and
Outside of the European Union. Luxemburg: European Communities.
Co
´
rdova, P. and Equipo Te
´
cnico de DIRFO (1993) ‘Evaluacio
´
n de la calidad, eficacia and
rentabilidad de la formacio
´
n’, Capital Humano, 56: 30– 8.
D’Arcimoles, C.H. (1997) ‘Human Resources Policies and Company Performance: A Quantitative
Approach Using Longitudinal Data’, Organization Studies, 18(5): 857 –74.
Davidove, E.A. and Schroeder, P.A. (1992) ‘Demonstrating ROI of Training’, Training and
Development, 46(8): 70– 1.
Delaney, J. and Huselid, M. (1996) ‘The Impact of Human Resources Management Practices on
Perceptions of Organizational Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 949– 69.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996) ‘Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource
Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance
Predictions’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 802 –35.
Dickenson, P. and Blundell, B. (2000) ‘Transferring Quality Management Experience to the
Russian Aerospace Industry’, Total Quality Management, 11(3): 319 –27.
Dyer, L. and Reeves, T. (1995) ‘HR Strategies and Firm Performance: What Do We Know and
Where Do We Need to Go?’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3):
656– 70.
Ferna
´
ndez Sa
´
nchez, E., Montes Peo
´
n, J.M. and Va
´
zquez Orda
´
s, C.J. (1996) ‘Factores de
competitividad en la pequen
˜
a and mediana empresa: Inversio
´
n en activos intangibles, taman
˜
o
and lı
´
mites al crecimiento’, Economı
´
a Industrial, 310: 141 –8.
Ferra
´
n Aranaz, M. (1996) SPSS para Windows: Programacio
´
n y ana
´
lisis estadı
´
stico. Madrid:
McGraw-Hill Interamericana.
Foot, M. and Hook, C. (1996) Introducing Human Resource Management. Singapore: Longman.
Frazis, H., Gittleman, M., Horrigan, M. and Joyce, M. (1998) ‘Results from the 1995 Survey of
Employer-Provided Training’, Monthly Labor Review, 121(6): 3–13.
Frazis, H., Gittleman, M. and Joyce, M. (2000) ‘Correlates of Training: An Analysis Using Both
Employer and Employee Characteristics’, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 53(3): 443 –62.
Goldstein, I.L. (1993) Training in Organizations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Go
´
mez-Mejı
´
a, L.R., Balkin, D.B. and Cardy, R.L. (1996) Gestio
´
n de recursos humanos. Madrid:
Prentice Hall.
Gray, G.R. and Hall, M.E. (1997) ‘Training Practices in State Government Agencies’, Public
Personnel Management, 26(2): 187– 203.
Hamblin, A.C. (1974) Evaluation and Control of Training. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Holton, E.F. (1996) ‘The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model’, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 7(1): 5– 21.
Holton, E.F. (2000) ‘Large-scale Performance-Driven Training Needs Assessment’, Public
Personnel Management, 29(2): 249– 67.
Holzer, H., Block, R., Cheatham, M. and Knott, J. (1993) ‘Are Training Subsidies for
Firms Effective? The Michigan Experience’, Industrial & Labour Relations Review, 46(4):
625– 36.
Hotchkiss, L. (1993) ‘Effects of Training, Occupation, and Training –Occupation Match on Wage’,
The Journal of Human Resources, 28(3): 482– 97.
Huselid, M.A. (1995) ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38(3):
635– 72.
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997) ‘The Effects of Human Resource Management
Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines’, The American Economic Review,
87(3): 291– 313.
978 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Jackson, T. (1989) Evaluation: Relating Training to Business Performance. San Diego, CA:
University Associates.
Kamoche, K. (1996) ‘Strategic Human Resource Management within a Resource–Capability View
of the Firm’, Journal of Management Studies, 33(2): 213– 33.
Kaufman, R. and Keller, J.M. (1994) ‘Levels of Evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick’, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 5(4): 371– 80.
Kidder, P.J. and Rouiller, J.Z. (1997) ‘Evaluating the Success of a Large-Scale Training Effort’,
National Productivity Review, Spring, 79–89.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1997) ‘Revisando las Grandes Ideas’, Training & Development Digest, September:
28– 36.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1999) Evaluacio
´
n de acciones formatives: Los cuatro niveles. Barcelona:
EPISE.
Klein, H.J. and Weaver, N.A. (2000) ‘The Effectiveness of an Organizational-Level
Orientation Training Program in the Socialization of New Hires’, Personnel Psychology, 53:
47– 66.
Lee, C.C. and Yang, J. (2000) ‘Knowledge Value Chain’, Journal of Management Development,
19(9): 783– 93.
Legare, T.L. (1999) ‘Defining Training Roles and Responsibilities at Partners Healthcare System’,
National Productivity Review, 19(1): 5– 13.
Lyau, N. and Pucel, D.J. (1995) ‘Economic Return on Training: Investment at the Organization
Level’, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3): 68 –79.
Lynch, L. (1992) ‘Private-Sector Training and the Earnings of Young Workers’, The American
Economic Review, March: 299– 312.
MacDuffie, J.P. and Kochan, T.A. (1995) ‘Do US Firms Invest Less in Human Resources? Training
in the World Auto Industry’, Industrial Relations, 34(2): 147– 68.
McGehee, R. and Thayere, J. (1961) Training in Business and Industry. New York: John Wiley.
Mueller, F. (1996) ‘Human Resources as Strategic Assets: An Evolutionary Resource-Based
Theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 33(6): 757– 85.
Murray, B. and Raffaele, G.C. (1997) ‘Single-site, Results-Level Evaluation of Quality Awareness
Training’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(3): 229 –45.
Nelson, B. and Dailey, P. (1998) ‘Measuring the Effectiveness of Recognition Programs’, HR
Focus, 75(11): 6.
O’Neill, M. (1998) ‘Co
´
mo enfocar la evaluacio
´
n de la formacio
´
n’, Info-line (American Society for
Training and Development), 1(special issue): 1 –18.
Oberman, G. (1996) ‘An Approach for Measuring Safety Training Effectiveness’, Occupational
Health & Safety, 65(12): 48– 58.
Parry, S.B. (1996) ‘Measuring Training’s ROI’, Training & Development, 50(5): 72 –7.
PAVE (Promoting Added Value through the Evaluation of Training) (1997) Plymouth: University
of Plymouth.
Phillips, J.J. (1997) Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurements Methods. Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing Company.
Pineda, P. (1995) Auditorı
´
a de la formacio
´
n. Barcelona: Gestio
´
n 2000.
Pineda, P. (1998) ‘El reto de evaluar la formacio
´
n en la empresa: Herramientas and soluciones’,
Capital Humano, 111: 32– 6.
Plant, R.A. and Ryan, R.J. (1992) ‘Training Evaluation: A Procedure for Validating an
Organizations Investment in Training’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 16(10):
22– 38.
Raghuram, M. (1994) ‘Linking Staffing and Training Practices with Business Strategy: A
Theoretical Perspective’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(3): 237 –51.
Ramı
´
rez del Rı
´
o, A. (1997) Valoracio
´
n de la Formacio
´
n. Co
´
mo Rentabilizar los Costes de
Formacio
´
n. Madrid: Grider & Asociados.
Robinson, D.G. and Robinson, J.C. (1998) ‘Co
´
mo medir los cambios afectivos and de conducta’,
Info-line (American Society for Training and Development), 2 (special issue): 1 –16.
Russell, J.S., Terborg, J.R. and Powers, M.L. (1985) ‘Organizational Performance and
Organizational Level Training and Support’, Personal Psychology, 38: 849 –63.
Arago
´
n-Sa
´
nchez et al.: Effects of training on business results 979
Selmer, J. (2000) ‘A Quantitative Needs Assessment Technique for Cross-Cultural Work
Adjustment Training’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3): 269 –82.
Shelton, S. and Alliger, G. (1993) ‘Who’s Afraid of Level 4 Evaluation?’, Training & Development
Journal, 47: 43– 6.
Sole
´
Parellada, F. and Mirabet Vallhonesta, M. (1997) Guı
´
a para la formacio
´
n en la empresa.
Madrid: Civitas.
Tannenbaum, S.I. and Woods, S.B. (1992) ‘Determining a Strategy for Evaluating Training:
Operating within Organizational Constraints’, Human Resource Planning, 15(2): 63 –82.
Truelove, S. (1997) Training in Practice. Oxford.
Uriel, E., Contreras, D., Molto
´
, M.L. and Peiro
´
, A. (1990) Econometrı
´
a: El modelo lineal. Madrid:
AC.
Ventosa, J.P. (1998) ‘Desde la evaluacio
´
n de la formacio
´
n al rendimiento de la inversio
´
n’, Apuntes
de Formacio
´
n. Training Club, EPISE.
Waagen, A.K. (1998) ‘Fundamentos de la evaluacio
´
n’, Info-line (American Society for Training
and Development), 1: 1– 14.
Werther, W.B. and Davis, K. (1991) Administracio
´
n de personal and recursos humanos.Me
´
xico:
McGraw-Hill.
Wood, S. (1996) ‘High Commitment Management and Payment Systems’, Journal of Management
Studies, 33(1): 53– 77.
Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. (1994) ‘Human Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Perspective’, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5(2): 301– 26.
980 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
