international journal of management (ijm) ijm © i a e … · development of managers in state bank...

578

Dr. G. S. David Sam Jayakumar and G. Rafick, “Modelling Training Effectiveness and Its Impact on

Development of Managers In State Bank of India” - (ICAM 2016)

MODELLING TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND ITS IMPACT ON

DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGERS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA

Dr. G. S. David Sam Jayakumar

Assistant professor,

Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohammed College, Trichy

G. Rafick

M.Phil Scholar,

Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohammed College, Trichy

ABSTRACT

The study made attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of training provided and its impact

in the manager’s development. The banking employees designated as managers, branch

managers, asst. Branch managers are consider for this study. A draft Questioner was consists

of 6 different set of question. They are personal and demographic profile (6), Training session

(6), training content (5), and training aspects (5), transfer of learning (6), manager’s

development (8). The conceptual questions are anchored with 7 point linker scale and the

Questionnaire was issued to the managers randomly to collect a primarily information as the

results were good. Finally, the data analysis with statistical namely IBM SPSS 22 and IBM

SPSS AMOS 22. At first frequency table was tabulated for personal and demographic profile.

Secondly structure equation model was applied to evaluate the impact of training effectiveness

in manager development.

Key words: Training Session, Training Content, Trainer Aspects, Transfer of Learning,

Managers Development.

Cite this Article: Dr. G. S. David Sam Jayakumar and G. Rafick. Modelling Training

Effectiveness and Its Impact on Development of Managers in State Bank of India.

International Journal of Management, 7(2), 2016, pp. 578-592.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

INTRODUCTION AND RELATED WORKS

Training is a process through which the people enhances and develops his efficiency, capacity and

effectiveness at work by improving and updating my knowledge and understanding the skills relevant

to his or her job. Training also helps a person cultivate appropriate and desired behaviours and attitude

towards work and people. Development is the related process. It covers not only those activities which

improve job performance but also those which bring about growth of the personality; help individuals

in the progress towards maturity and actualization of their potential capacities. So, that they become not

only good employees but better man and women. Considering this study was made to know the impact

of training in the development of managers working in State Bank of India bank. The most popular and

widely known approach to the evaluation of training is Kirkpatrick’s framework. The model has served

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

ISSN 0976-6502 (Print)

ISSN 0976-6510 (Online)

Volume 7, Issue 2, February (2016), pp. 578-592

http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp

Journal Impact Factor (2016): 8.1920 (Calculated by GISI)

www.jifactor.com

IJM

© I A E M E

http://www.jifactor.com/

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 -

6510(Online), Volume 7, Issue 2, February (2016), pp. 578-592 © IAEME Publication

579



as the primary organizing design for training evaluations in organizations for over 30 years. Kirkpatrick

identifies four categories of measures namely 1) Reaction, 2) Behavior,3)Learning 4)Results

(Kirkpatrick, 1979).Level one includes assessment of training participants’ reaction to the training

program, especially assessment of affective responses to the quality or the relevance of training. This

has been incorporated by most organizations into the frequently used training evaluation questionnaire

or ‘‘happy sheet’’. Level two, learning measures, is defined as quantifiable indicators of the learning

that has taken place during the course of the training. Level three, behaviour outcomes, addresses either

the extent to which knowledge and skills gained in training are applied on the job or result in

exceptional job-related performance. Finally level four, outcomes are intended to provide some

measure of the impact that training has had on broader organizational goals and objectives (Alliger and

Janak, 1989; Bates, 2004). Critics have highlighted a series of criticisms of the Kirkpatrick’s model

(Bates, 2004). Guerci and colleagues have suggesting that the four levels of evaluation that it proposes

lead to an excessively simplified vision regarding the effectiveness of training, particularly because it

does not consider the influences of the organizational context (Guerci et al., 2010). A second criticism

is based on the causal relations between the levels of evaluation. According to the model it is not

possible to achieve positive results at top levels if this does not occur at lower levels (Alliger and

Janak, 1989). There is limited published evidence to support this. A third criticism of the hierarchical

model is the unitary perspective. The model assumes the point of view of the organization and it

neglects the evaluation needs of all the other stakeholders involved in the training process (Guerci et

al., 2010). Kaufman and Keller (1994) have suggested that Kirkpatrick’s four levels are also

incomplete and lead to a too narrowly focus on the evaluation of training alone (Watkins et al., 1998).

The evaluation framework proposed by Kaufman and Keller (1994) incorporates aspects of program

evaluation, keeps the distinctive four-level features and suggests a five-level evaluation framework.

That is, the application of the four levels of training evaluation is expanded in order to consider the

internal and external consequences of all interventions related to performance and organizational

improvement. According to these authors, Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework devalues the

evaluation of societal impact or the usefulness and availability of organizational resources. They

offered four additional aspects (Stoking, 1998, p. 172):

1. Consumer satisfaction and societal contribution as additional evaluation criteria.

2. Evaluation as part of the process of needs assessment and planning.

3. Identification of the desired or expected results and consequences as part of the same process.

4. Availability and quality of resources and efficiency of their use as additional criteria.

SELECTED REVIEWS

Stoking (1998), is equally critical of the Kaufman and Keller model. Stokking suggests the model lacks

clarity in some aspects, such as the distinction between the desired chronology of activities and the

aspects of level and importance, or regarding implementation. Implementation and achievement of the

learning objectives both integrate Acquisition (Level 2), which should indicate the success of training

implementation. An alternative and widely quoted model is the CIRO (contents/contexts, inputs,

reactions and outcomes) model proposed by War et al. (1970). The model measures learning/training

effectiveness by CIRO elements, both before and after training. The strength of the CIRO model is the

measurement of managerial training program and also the effectiveness consideration of objectives

(contexts) and training equipment (inputs). Tzeng and colleagues have suggested that this model does

not indicate how measurement takes place and, for this reason, the model does not provide important

information regarding the current training situation, which could, certainly, lead to improvements

(Tzeng et al., 2007).The CIPP model (context, input, process and product) proposed by Stufflebeam

shares many of the features of CIRO model (Roark et al., 2006). However with CIPP, the context

provides situational data in order to determine program objectives, input determines the strategies used

to achieve the outcomes, product involves program implementation and product involves evaluation of

outcomes worth and effectiveness (Khalid et al., 2012).Bennett (1997) has suggested that the model

assumes rationality by decision making and ignores the diversity of interests and multiple

interpretations of these agents. While Kirkpatrick has been the dominant model for organizational

evaluation for three decades Phillips’ ROI (return-on-investment) framework has emerged in the past

decade and has entered the organization evaluation lexicon with its focus on return on investment – a

popular phrase for those conducting investment decisions. The model combines the four levels of



580



evaluation developed by Kirkpatrick and adds a fifth level to measure success in areas of Human

Resources function, that is, the ROI measurement compares the monetary benefits from the program

with the program costs (Chmielewski and Phillips, 2002).This evaluation model suggests that while the

four factors are useful, without a consideration of the monetary value of specific training initiatives,

such as training or coaching, investments should not be considered. The model however has serious

limitations, which have largely been ignored in the overt focus on business ROI. One major weakness

is the complexity in determining returns on soft aspects of business such as training. In fact, it might

suggest such efforts are impossible in non-controlled environments. This is because it is difficult in

reality to isolate the effects of the specific intervention, for example training, from other organizational

factors, which can lead to improvements in performance (Hogan, 2007). These organizational factors

can be a change of manager or leadership; to changes to demand for the product or service due to

fashion or economic factors, as well as wider impact of other organizational interventions from a pay

rise to a change in office layout.ROI has been used in several training and coaching evaluations with

enthusiasm (McGovern et al., 2001). In the McGovern study participants were asked to estimate the

value (benefit) of the coaching on key decisions. Brinkerhoff’s (1989) model adds two preliminary

levels to Kirkpatrick’s model, in order to provide formative evaluation of training needs and the

training design (Holton and Naquin, 2005).This model presents some limitations, since it consists of

both formative and summative evaluation, which is only possible in ideal cases where the employer

and the training organizers are closely related, where an evaluation design has already been built during

the training process, or where there are no competing deadlines or reduced budgets (Holton and

Naquin, 2005).Bushnell (1990) described the IPO (Inputs, Process, and Outputs/Outcomes) Model that

interprets the evaluation process as cyclical. This model first examines input factors that may influence

a program’s effectiveness (for example, trainees’ qualifications, program design, instructors’ quality

and qualifications, materials quality, facilities, or equipment). After, it analyses process factors (such as

planning, developing or delivery of the training). Finally, the evaluation of results is organized into

evaluation of outputs (short-term results) and evaluation of outcomes (long-term results). Outputs

include trainees’ reactions, performance or improvement, and outcomes focus on business results

(Russ-Eft et al., 2008).Overall, criticisms of the model are based on its lack of information related to

program functioning, or to the specific components that affect the results. Then, there is no way to

identify at what point the program failed, because no impact is found (Robertson, 2004). Holton (1996)

proposed the HRD Evaluation and Research Model that hypothesized three outcomes levels:

1. Learning;

2. Individual performance; and

3. Organization.

According to Holton (1996) these levels are influenced by primary (such as ability, motivation and

environmental influences) and secondary factors (for example, those that affect motivation to

learn).Later, Holton (2005) recognizes that a full test of initial HRD Evaluation and Research Model is

impossible because the majority of the tools to measure the constructs presented in the model did not

exist. For these reasons, the author proposed an updated version of the model by delineating specific

constructs that should be measured in each of the conceptual categories proposed (Holton, 2005).

Kirwan and Birchall (2006) also pointed out that this model solely ‘‘describes a sequence of influences

on outcomes occurring in a single learning experience and does not demonstrate any feedback loops’’

(p. 257) and it does not indicate any interaction between factors of the same type. Some of the potential

weaknesses of the model are noted by the authors themselves. Designer and Moseley (2006) refer that

‘‘Full-scope evaluation stays around longer than ‘regular’ evaluation and requires long-term support

from the organization and all the stakeholders:’’ (p. 322).

METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To know the profile of State Bank of India.

2. To study the theoretical framework of training effectiveness and employees development.

3. To propose the multidimensional and structure model that evaluates the impact of training

effectiveness in the manager development.



581



4. To give suitable suggestion and recommendation to the trainer and State Bank of India.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The researcher is a simple survey to evaluate the training effectiveness and its impact on managers

development for this the researcher adopted a purposive sampling method which is a non- probabilistic

sampling technique. In this manner, the managers, branch managers, asst, branch managers were

considered a sample for this study.

DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE

In order to determination the sample size the research study used following formula:

Where, n= the sample size,

Z= the standard normal variete value (1.96%) at 5% confidence level,

e= the allowable sampling error at 5 % and

s= the standard deviation.

Based on the pilot study, the standard deviation (0.4404) was substitute in the above mentioned

formula to get a requited sample size for this study.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This research made attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of training provided and its impact in the

manager’s development. The banking employees designated as managers, branch managers, asst.

Branch managers are consider for this study.

PROFILE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA

The origin of the State Bank of India goes back to the first decade of the nineteenth century with the

establishment of the Bank of Calcutta in Calcutta on 2 June 1806. Three years later the bank received

its charter and was re-designed as the Bank of Bengal (2 January 1809). A unique institution, it was the

first joint-stock bank of British India sponsored by the Government of Bengal. The Bank of Bombay

(15 April 1840) and the Bank of Madras (1 July 1843) followed the Bank of Bengal. These three banks

remained at the apex of modern banking in India till their amalgamation as the Imperial Bank of India

on 27 January 1921. Primarily Anglo-Indian creations, the three presidency banks came into existence

either as a result of the compulsions of imperial finance or by the felt needs of local European

commerce and were not imposed from outside in an arbitrary manner to modernize India's economy.

Their evolution was, however, shaped by ideas culled from similar developments in Europe and

England, and was influenced by changes occurring in the structure of both the local trading

environment and those in the relations of the Indian economy to the economy of Europe and the global

economic framework.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT IN SBI

TRAINING EVALUATION MODEL

ANALYZING TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

This is where Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model can help you objectively analyze the

effectiveness and impact of your training, so that you can improve it in the future. The Kirkpatrick four

levels and we'll examine how you can apply the model to evaluate training. We'll also look at some of

the situations where the model may not be useful.

THE FOUR LEVELS

Donald Kirkpatrick, Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin and past president of the

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), first published his Four-Level Training



582



Evaluation Model in 1959, in the US Training and Development Journal. The model was then updated

in 1975, and again in 1994, when he published his best-known work, "Evaluating Training Programs."

THE FOUR LEVELS ARE

1. Reaction.

2. Learning.

3. Behaviour.

4. Results.

LEVEL 1: REACTION

This level measures how your trainees (the people being trained), reacted to the training. Obviously,

you want them to feel that the training was a valuable experience, and you want them to feel good

about the instructor, the topic, the material, its presentation, and the venue. It's important to measure

reaction; because it helps you understand how well the training was received by your audience. It also

helps you improve the training for future trainees, including identifying important areas or topics that

are missing from the training.

LEVEL 2: LEARNING

At level 2, you measure what your trainees have learned. How much has their knowledge increased as a

result of the training?

When you planned the training session, you hopefully started with a list of specific learning

objectives: these should be the starting point for your measurement. Keep in mind that you can measure

learning in different ways depending on these objectives, and depending on whether you're interested in

changes to knowledge, skills, or attitude. It's important to measure this, because knowing what your

trainees are learning and what they aren't will help you improve future training.

LEVEL 3: BEHAVIOUR

At this level, you evaluate how far your trainees have changed their behaviour, based on the training

they received. Specifically, this looks at how trainees apply the information.

It's important to realize that behaviour can only change if conditions are favourable. For instance,

imagine you've skipped measurement at the first two Kirkpatrick levels and, when looking at your

group's behaviour, you determine that no behaviour change has taken place. Therefore, you assume that

your trainees haven't learned anything and that the training was ineffective. However, just because

behaviour hasn't changed, it doesn't mean that trainees haven't learned anything. Perhaps their boss

won't let them apply new knowledge. Or, maybe they've learned everything you taught, but they have

no desire to apply the knowledge themselves.

LEVEL 4: RESULTS

At this level, you analyze the final results of your training. This includes outcomes that you or your

organization have determined to be good for business, good for the employees, or good for the bottom

line. Reaction measures how the participants liked the program, and it is the evaluation method most

commonly used by organizations. Typically, participants are given a “post-training questionnaire” that

uses a Linker-type scale (1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree,

5 = agree strongly).

Questions asked focus on the participants’ opinion about program issues:

“I really enjoyed attending this program.”

“This program will be a great help in my job.”

“The instructor was very knowledgeable about the topic.”

“I would recommend this program to my peers.”

Reactions are easy to measure, and they certainly provide trainers a sense of well-being and

comfort about their human resource development (HRD) programs. Additionally, they can be

determined quickly and easily immediately after any program. Reactions also can be seen as one



583



measure of how motivated trainees are to attend the program, but there are some issues that make

reactions less than perfect as a method of measuring the effectiveness of an intervention. For instance,

reactions can be easily manipulated — good food and a pleasant day away from work can be a very

nice way to spend a day.

The second level, learning, focuses on the participant being able to repeat concepts presented

during the program. Learning typically is measured using both a pre-test and a post-test and comparing

the results. The change is considered to be a measure of what the participants learned during the

program.

While learning is a very useful means for evaluating some programs, it is of little value in

evaluating many others. (Is it worthwhile to “know” the steps for performing CPR?).

Levels 3 and 4 of Kirkpatrick’s model focus on issues more critical to most organizations than the

first two levels. Behavior, the third level, looks at how participants act after the program compared with

the way they acted before the program. Behaviors, while very important factors in many programs, can

be difficult to measure and analyze.

It is usually essential to use both a pre- and a post-measure and to include a control group for

comparison purposes. The control group is similar in as many ways as possible to the group receiving

the intervention, but the control group does not receive the intervention. The use of a control group

allows you to make the assertion that any changes in the group receiving the intervention, which do not

occur in the control group, are most likely because of the HRD intervention. While the above is

generally straightforward, evaluating behavioral changes is further compounded by the difficulty in

measuring behaviors at all — how do we measure behaviors? We can observe how people behave and

record those observations, but this is time-consuming, and people often behave differently when being

observed.

Data analysis and interpretation

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of demographic factors

Demographic factors particulars No of bank Managers Percent

Gender Male 132 62.9

Female 78 78

Age

20-25 years 42 20.0

26-35 60 28.6

36-45 60 28.6

45-50 30 14.3

Above 50 18 8.6

Category

Manager 54 25.7

Branch manager 105 50.0

Asst. branch manager 51 24.3

Experience

Below 2 years 27 12.9

2-5 years 33 15.7

5-10 years 78 37.1

10-15 years 57 27.1

Above 15 years 15 7.1

Monthly Income

Below 40,000 36 17.1

40,000-50,000 117 55.7

Above 50,000 57 27.1

n= 210



584



The Table visualized the gender, age group, designation, experience, income of the bank managers

of SBI, majority of the managers are female (78%). This is followed by male managers (62.9%).

Majority of the managers are at the age group of 26 – 45 (28.6%). This is followed by age group of

managers at 20 – 25 (20%). Managers above the age of 50 are leased numbered (8.6). The managers

are at the designation of branch managers (50%). This is followed by designation of the managers

(25.7%). The leased numbered are Asst. Branch manager (24.3). Majority are at the year of 5-10 years

(37.1%). This is followed by the years of the experienced managers at 10-15 years (27.1%). Managers

above 15 years of experienced are leased numbered (7.1%). Majority are at 40,000-50,000 (55.7%).

This is followed by the Income of bank managers above 50,000 (27.1%). Managers below 40,000 are

leased numbered (7.1%).

Structural Equation Model of Training Effectiveness and its effect on Managers Development



585



Structural Equation Model of Training Effectiveness and its effect on Managers Development

Path Estimate (Table – 1)

Indicators Constraints Estimate S.E. C.R. P R2

TS1 Training session 1.000 - - - .962

TS2 Training session .942 .046 20.617 .000 .695





MD1 Managers Development 1.000 - - - .695

MD2 Managers Development 1.182 .066 17.772 .000 .833

MD3 Managers Development .952 .063 15.013 .000 .685



TC5 Training content 1.000 - - - .601

TC4 Training content 1.066 .079 13.547 .000 .767

TC3 Training content .935 .073 12.881 .000 .702






TL6 Transfer of Learning 1.000 - - - .989

TL5 Transfer of Learning .892 .065 13.820 .000 .483


TL3 Transfer of Learning .036 .068 .524 .600 .001

TL2 Transfer of Learning 1.024 .015 68.958 .000 .981


TA5 Trainer Aspects 1.000 - - - .519

TA4 Trainer Aspects .970 .096 10.062 .000 .528

TA3 Trainer Aspects 1.450 .122 11.911 .000 .746



Managers Development Training content .121 .043 2.796 .005

.927 Managers Development Training session .778 .052 14.988 .000

Managers Development Transfer of Learning -.095 .038 -2.521 .012

Managers Development Trainer Aspects .270 .062 4.381 .000

RMR (Root Mean Square Residual) = 0.157, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) = 0.84, AGFI (Adjusted

Goodness of fit Index) =0.78, AIC (Akakaie Information criteria) = 888.369, S.E = Standardised

Estimate, CR = Critical Ratio, P= p- Value.

Table 1 describe to measure training session six variables were consider. Out of the six variables,

the adequate resource to implement the training session has maximum beta loading 0.996. the variables

benefit from the training programme has the next maximum beta loading 0.985 & the training

objectives were accurately conveyed was a variables with beta loading 0.952 and its followed by the

variables the training objectives were properly accomplished with the beta loading 0.942 and its

followed by collected feedback forms from the trainees were subjective and objective minimum beta

loading 0.859. Secondly manager’s development eight variables were considered. Out of eight

variables, the variables positive impact on my job and career development has maximum beta loading



586



1.182, 1.034. the variables job provides to do something that makes use of abilities and feel proud to

work and long term for this organization were maximum beta loading 0.974 and its followed by there is

a chance of advancement in the current job lowest beta loading 0.952. Thirdly training content five

variables were considered. Out of five variables skills acquire through training development

programme has increased maximum beta loading 1.066. The variables training session has increased

understanding of the subject is maximum beta loading 1.009. The next variables training contents were

relevant to the job beta loading 0.980 and it’s followed by skills acquire through training were helpful

carrying out of my duties has minimum beta loading 0.935. Transfers of learning six variables were

considered. Out of six variables, the variables were able to transfer the learning from training to work

the maximum beta loading 1.024. The variables training has increased work efficiency and

effectiveness was maximum beta loading 0.892 and its followed by the training has control over the job

beta loading 0.453. Next the trainer aspect five variables were considered. Out of five variables, the

trainer was well prepared the maximum beta loading 1.463. The training showed encouragement and

motivated trainees to learn maximum beta loading 1.450. The next variables the trainer was so helpful

and its beta loading 1.350 and its followed by the trainer used varied learning methods for different

types of learner’s lowest beta loading 0.970. Finally the four dimensions like (Training content,

Training session, Transfer of learning, Trainer aspects) were consider to predict managers

development. Out of the four dimensions the training session predict 0.778 maximum towards

managers development, followed by the trainer aspects which predict 0.270 towards managers

development, the third dimension training content predict 0.121 towards managers development, the

dimension transfer of learning has a negative impact -0.095 towards managers development. And all

the above mention statement and its significant at 0.000 level. The goodness of fit index of the above

model above 84% which shows there is a good fit between the variables in the model.

Structural Equation Model of Training Effectiveness and its indirect Managers Development



587



Structural Equation Model of Training Effectiveness and its indirect Managers Development

Path Estimate (Table -2)
































Managers Development Training content .148 .098 1.512 .130

.433 Managers Development Training session .907 .082 11.082 .000

Managers Development Transfer of Learning .147 .103 1.422 .155

Managers Development Trainer Aspects .237 .127 1.873 .061

RMR (Root Mean Square Residual) = 0.404, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) = 0.80, AGFI

(Adjusted Goodness of fit Index) =0.76, AIC (Akakaie Information criteria) = 1900.317, S.E =

Standardised Estimate, CR = Critical Ratio, P = p-value.

Table 2 describe to measure training session six variables were consider. Out of the 6 variables, the

individual variables adequate resource to implement the training session has maximum beta loading

0.985. The variables benefit from the training programme has the next maximum beta loading 0.964.

The next variables the objectives were properly accomplished with the beta loading 0.930. The benefit

from training programme the beta loading 0.925 and it’s followed by collected feedback forms from

the trainees was subjective and objective minimum beta loading 0.828. Secondly manager development

eight variables were considered. Out of eight variables, the individual statement positive impact on my



588



job and career development has maximum beta loading 0.896 & 0.797. The variables to do something

that makes use of abilities feel proud to work for this organization were maximum beta loading 0.74,

0.746 & 0.730 its followed by the job provides new ways of learning lowest beta loading 0.622.

Thirdly the training content five variables were considered. Out of five variables, the individual

statement sills acquire through training development programme has increased maximum beat loading

1.075. The variables skills acquire through training were helpful to carrying out of my duties has beta

loading 0.945. The training session has increased understanding of the subject beta loading 0.929 and

it’s followed by training contents were relevant to the job perform minimum beta loading 0.924. The

transfer of learning six variables were considers. Out of six variables, the individual statement the

training has put control over the job is maximum beta loading 1.399. The variables was able to transfer

the learning from training to work allowed learn from mistakes that happened during affect transfer of

learning minimum beta loading 0.815. The trainer aspects five variables were considered. Out of five

variables, the individual variables were well prepared the maximum beta loading 1.733. The training

showed encouragement and motivated trainees to learn maximum beta loading 1.658. The next

statement the trainer was so helpful maximum beta loading 1.630 and it’s followed by trainer used

varied learning methods for different types of learners beta loading 1.030. The four dimension like

(Training session, Training content, Transfer of learning, Trainer aspects) were consider to predict

managers development. Out of the four dimensions the training sessions predict 0.907 maximum

towards managers development, followed by the trainer aspects which predict 0.237. The third

dimension training content predicts 0.148 towards managers development, the dimension transfer of

learning predict 0.147 towards managers development. And all the above mention statement and its

significant at 0.000 level. The goodness of fit index of above model is above 80% which shows there is

a good fit between the variable in the model.

Structural Equation Model for the impact of Managers Development in the dimensions of

Training Effectiveness



589



Structural Equation Model for the impact of Managers Development in the dimensions of

Training Effectiveness Path Estimate (Table- 3)
































Training session Managers Development .986 .096 10.215 .000 .418

Transfer of Learning Managers Development .698 .087 8.054 .000 .733

Trainer Aspects Managers Development .555 .064 8.630 .000 .577

Training content Managers Development .565 .067 8.444 .000 .414

RMR (Root Mean Square Residual) = 0.202, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) = 0.82, AGFI (Adjusted

Goodness of fit Index) =0.78, AIC (Akaike Information criteria) = 1520.194, S.E = Standardised

Estimate, CR = Critical Ratio, P = P- Value

Table 3 describes to measure training session six variables were consider. Out of six variables, the

individual variables adequate resource to implement the training session has maximum beta loading

0.970. The variables benefit from the training programme has next maximum beta loading 0.949. The

training objectives were properly accomplished maximum beta loading 0.916 and it’s followed by the

statement collected feedback forms from the trainees were subjective and objective minimum beta

loading 0.815. Secondly managers development eight variables were consider. Out of eight variables,

the individual statement positive impact on my job, career development maximum beta loading

respectively 1.239, 1.080. The next variables job provides to do something that makes use of abilities



590



and feel proud to work for long term for this organization were maximum beta loading 1.018, 1.014,

1.011 and it’s followed by advancement in the current job lowest beta loading 0.995. Thirdly training

content five variables were considered. Out of five variables, the individual statement variables skills

acquire through training development programme has increased capabilities and maximum beta loading

1.060. The training session has increased understanding of the subject maximum beta loading 1.028.

The next statement training contents were relevant to the job skills acquire through training was helpful

to carrying out of my duties beta loading 0.925. The transfers of learning six variables were considered.

Out of six variables, the training has put control over the job maximum beta loading 1.561. Training

was able to transfer the learning from training to work has maximum beta loading 1.020. The training

was allowed transfers of learning maximum beta loading 0.879 and its followed by the variable to

implement the transfer of learning minimum beta loading 0.449.The trainer aspects five variables were

considered. Out of five variables, the individual variables trainer was well prepared has maximum beta

loading 1.585. The training showed encouragement and motivated trainees to learn maximum beta

loading 1.560. The next variables trainer was so helpful maximum beta loading 1.481 and it’s followed

by the statement the different types of learning methods are following minimum beta loading 1.028. To

measure the four dimension like (Training session, Training content, Transfer of learning, Trainer

aspects) were consider to predict managers development. Out of the four dimensions the training

sessions predict 0.986 maximum towards managers development, followed by the transfer of learning

which predict 0.698 towards managers development. The third dimension training content predicts

0.565 towards manager’s development, the dimension trainer aspect which predict 0.555 towards

manager’s development. And all the above mention statement and its significant at 0.000 level. The

goodness of fit index of above model is above 82% which shows there is a good fit between the

variable in the model.

FINDINGS

BASED ON INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS IN THE DIMENSION (OVERALL MODEL)

1) Training Session:

Out of six variables in the training session dimension variable (TS 6) managers were provided with

adequate resources to implement the learning from training session has the highest loading .996 and

variable (TS 5) Feedback forms collected from the trainees were Subjective and objective has the least

beta loading .859.

2) Managers Development:

Out of eight variables in the dimension manager’s development variable (MD 2) Organizational steps

for employee growth such as training have positive impact on my job has the highest beta loading

1.182 and (MD 5) the job provides new ways of learning has the least beta loading .866.

3) Training Content:

Dimension training content has five variables out of which (TC 4) the skill(s) acquired through

training/development program has increased my capability has the highest beta loading 1.066 and (TC

3) Skills acquired through Training were helpful in carrying out duties has the least beta loading.935.

4) Transfer of Learning:

Dimension transfer of learning consists of six variables out of which (TL 2) Managers were able to

transfer the learning from training to work has the highest beta loading 1.024 and (TL 3) Managers

were in control on how to implement the learning has the least beta loading .036.

5) Training Aspects:

Out of five variables in training aspects (TA 2) trainer was well prepared has the highest beta

loading 1.463 and (TA 4) Trainer used varied learning methods for different types of learners (e.g.

slides, images, videos, practical demos) has the least beta loading .970 when comparing to other

variables and contributes less towards training aspects.



591



Out of the four dimensions Training content, Training session, Transfer of learning, Trainer

aspects, and training sessions contributes more towards manager’s development 0.778 and the

dimension transfer of learning shows a negative impact -0.095 towards manager’s development.

SUGGESTIONS

In today’s environment of increased accountability, the training evaluation process is a critical

component of an organization’s (Bank) training program. Banks administering the program not only

are accountable for what employees learn, they also are accountable for ensuring that employees

transfer their knowledge to their work performance. While traditional training evaluation methods

focus on using the assessment process to improve training delivery, information should also be

collected to determine whether training is assisting the organization to improve its business

performance. Organizations are constantly affected by change and to be socialized with the changing

nature of the global economic scenario the employees are to be acclimatized with new skills,

knowledge and attitudes. To build up competent and more knowledgeable workforce the following

recommendations could be followed by Organization must follow a systematic training cycle at regular

intervals to get the most out of the training and helping the employees update with latest knowledge

and skills. Employees working in a continuous-learning environment share the perceptions and

expectations that learning is essential to them and associated with their work. Training Performance

should be linked with the reward system to encourage employees. Reward for doing things well and

they need help and advice if they are not performing up to standard. Most importantly feedback should

be given timely, regularly and relevant. The provision of appropriate tools to deliver the training

program is very essential. Availability of latest learning technologies and advanced teaching methods

will helps employees upgrade to the next advanced level. Well trained training professionals are very

vital for the success of any training program in the organization. Trainers must be up to date with latest

knowledge depending with the nature of the organization and nature of the program. They must be well

prepared in all ways to deal with the complexities of the training program. Trainers must be

knowledgeable enough to solve any doubt raised by the trainees. Training must be plan should be based

on a detailed analysis of the existing material and functional possibilities for its implementation. Thus,

the available information should be considered, as well as the tools and resources at hand, the time

required and the approximate costs involved. Ultimately, the evaluation plan must be feasible and

realistic. Support from the management is an essential factor for the success of the training program.

Without the support from management bodies allocation of necessary resources that help in gaining

training results will be at risk.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, Skills and attitude are the most essential criterion of an employee for efficiently

performing the operations in any enterprise. These are the most significant asset in an organization’s

human resources in achieving competitive advantage. Training helps employees to get a clear view of

their job. Training refers to the acquisitions of knowledge and skills and help employees better

understand the information they are given. However, due to changing of business climate training

should not be considered as the only key to develop employees and therefore, look for other

alternatives like work based learning, coaching, mentoring and counselling etc. Thus, there are many

benefits to training evaluation. All that is needed is to set to work to achieve them.

REFERENCES

[1] Acton, t., & Golden, W. (2013) Training the knowledge worker: a descriptive study of

training practices in Irish software companies. Journal of European Industrial Training

27(2), 137-146.

[2] Bendingham, K. (1997). Proving the effectiveness of training. International and

commercial Training, 29(3), 88-91.

[3] Kirkpatrick, (1994), “Transferring learning to behaviour”, TpD, Vol. 59 No. 4, p. 19.



592



APPENDIX

Items

No

Dimension

Variables

Variable code/

item code

1

Training Session

The training objectives were accurately conveyed. TS1

2 The training objectives were properly accomplished. TS2

3 I was told that “How would I benefit from this training

program”. TS3

4 Having told that “How would I benefit from this training

program” helped me to gain commitment. TS4

5 Feedback forms collected from the trainees were

Subjective and objective. TS5

6 I was provided with adequate resources to implement

the learning from training session TS6

1

Training Content

Training session has increased my understanding of the

subject. TC1

2 Training contents were relevant to the job I perform. TC2

3 Skills acquired through Training were helpful to me in

carrying out my duties. TC3

4 The skill(s) acquired through training/development

Program has increased my capability. TC4

5 Training added value by providing opportunity to develop

skills and knowledge TC5

1

Training Aspects

Trainer was so helpful. TA1

2 Trainer was well prepared. TA2

3 Training showed encouragement and motivated trainees to

learn. TA3

4 Trainer used varied learning methods for different types

Of learners (e.g. slides, images, videos, practical demos). TA4

5 The training session was collaborative and involved

discussion with the trainer. TA5

1

Transfer of

Learning

Management supported me in transferring training to work. TL1

2 I was able to transfer the learning from training to work. TL2

3 I was in control on how to implement the learning. TL3

4 I was allowed learn from my mistakes that happened during

transfer of learning. TL4

5 The training has put me in further control over my job. TL5

6 The training has increased work efficiency and effectiveness. TL6

1

Managers

Development

I have made progress towards the goals I have set for myself. MD1

2 Organizational steps for employee growth such as

Training have positive impact on my job. MD2

3 There is a chance of advancement in the current job. MD3

4 The job provides me the chance to do something that makes

use of my abilities. MD4

5 The job provides me new ways of learning. MD5

6 I feel proud in telling others that I work for this organization. MD6

7 I would like to work long term for this organization. MD7

8 Training creates positive impact towards my career

development MD8

international journal of management (ijm) ijm © i a e … · development of managers in state bank...

Documents