Int. J.

of Human Resource Management 12:6 September 2001 988–1004

Motivation to train from the workers’

perspective: example of French companies

Sylvie Guerrero and Bruno Sire

Abstract The success of a training programme is largely contingent on the bene-

Ž ciary’s training motivation. With a focus on instrumentality and self-efŽ cacy, we have
sought to explain motivation and to measure its effects on variation of knowledge
acquisition and satisfaction with training. An empirical study of 335 workers sheds light
on the importance of age, the role of the hierarchical supervisor and the manner in which
training is portrayed. Voluntary participation, expressed by participation in decision
making or consideration of requests, plays only a minor role in explaining the success of
a programme.
Keywords Training motivation; training success; learning; workers.

Because it powers technological and organizational change, and given its contribution
to the effectiveness of approaches that enhance quality and  exibility, training has
become a major preoccupation of human resources managers. It is increasingly
becoming a universal concern for everyone in the Ž rm, whatever their hierarchical
position. However, employees do not respond uniformly to training. In France,
companies are experiencing severe difŽ culties in efŽ ciently training unskilled person-
nel, notably because this type of employee is reluctant to participate in training (Sorel,
1991; Performances Humaines et Techniques, 1994).
In Europe, France ranks second, after the United Kingdom, in terms of corporate
investment in training, both as a percentage of payroll (2 per cent) and as a percentage
of employees (37 per cent) (Eurostat, 1999).1 The development of training activities is
encouraged by the legislation, which sets a minimum expense threshold of 1.5 per cent
of payroll for companies with at least ten employees, and 0.25 per cent for other
companies. Participation in a training programme is not, however, commonplace among
French workers as a whole. DifŽ culties in training workers have been reported since the
1980s, especially in the context of restructuring and changes in the organization of
work. In general, French workers have a rather negative attitude to training. Training
echoes academic failure and can revive latent feelings of devaluation (Demart, 1986;
Padé, 1992). This apprehension about training is increased by signiŽ cant resistance to
change and genuine learning problems. The problem is worsened by workers’ lack of
access to training: in France, unskilled workers have 5.2 times less access to training
than do engineers and managers (Table 1).
One of the consequences of this scenario is the lack of training motivation in less
skilled socio-professional categories. In fact, training motivation is a necessary
condition for the success of a training programme. Numerous studies have established
that motivation has a signiŽ cant impact on training outcome. To our knowledge, with

Sylvie Guerrero, Professor, Audenda, Nantes, France; Bruno Sire, Professor, Université
Toulouse I, Director of LIRHE.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09585190110063192
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 989
Table 1 Access to training in France by socio-professional category (INSEE, 2000)

Socio-professional category* % of employees trained in 1998

Engineers and managers 44.7

Middle managers (Ž rst-level managers) 41.6
Employees 19.6
Skilled workers 18.6
Unskilled workers 8.5
Average 33.3
* according to French nomenclature .

the exception of one empirical study (Noe and Schmitt, 1986), motivation has been
positively linked to learning in training (Baldwin and Karl, 1987; Baldwin et al., 1991;
Hicks and Klimoski, 1987; Mathieu et al., 1992; Quinones, 1995). Training motivation
has also been correlated with post-training satisfaction and with transfer of knowledge
acquired to the work situation (for a review, see Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Ford et al.,
1997).
The objective of this article is to explain the role of training motivation in the
effectiveness of a training process. After having identiŽ ed a conceptual framework that
examines the notion of training motivation among workers, we will test, on a French
sample, hypotheses relating to determinants and consequences of motivation. We
emphasize the link with learning in training, which is considered one of the most critical
factors in ensuring the success of worker training.

Conceptual approach to training motivation

DeŽ nition and dimensions

One of the deŽ nitions widely used in recent studies of training motivation (Baldwin et
al., 1991; Facteau et al., 1995; Quinones, 1995) is that introduced by Noe in 1986 in the
Academy of Management Review. It is inspired by American research on motivation at
work (Campbell and Pritchard, 1976). Training motivation is described as ‘a speciŽ c
desire of the trainee to learn the content of the training programme’. Other deŽ nitions
refer to the effort exerted in training to learn the course contents (Hicks and Klimoski,
1987), along with Vroom’s expectancies theory (1964). Accordingly, Mathieu et al.
(1992) describe training motivation as ‘trainees’ perceptions that doing well in a
programme would lead to better job performance and consequently to valued
outcomes’.
Furthermore, several concepts have been used to describe training motivation. In
addition to expectancies theories (Vroom, 1964; Porter and Lawler, 1968), authors have
built upon the studies of Bandura (1977) on self-efŽ cacy and Adams on equity (1963).
Therefore, training motivation is a multi-dimensional construct. Applied to the case of
French workers, two dimensions appear particularly well adapted to the study of
training motivation: self-efŽ cacy and instrumentality (Guerrero, 1998).

Self-efŽ cacy Self-efŽ cacy is deŽ ned as ‘people’s judgements of their capabilities to
organise and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of
performance’ (Bandura, 1986: 391). It corresponds to an individual’s judgement of their
capacity to cope with the requirements of a precise situation or to attain an objective. It
does not necessarily re ect the actual possession of skills, but rather the individual’s
990 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
perception of their capacities, regardless of the skills they possess. This concept has
been used recently in the Ž eld of adult education (Mathieu et al., 1993; Quinones,
1995). In the French context, it has been applied to problems arising from a lack of self-
conŽ dence, experienced by workers who participate in training (Aventur and Hanchane,
1999).

Instrumentality Instrumentality corresponds to an individual’s perception that their

efforts in training will enable them to gain rewards at work. In general, the training
effort is considered to be in an instrumental relationship with two types of rewards:
intrinsic (interesting work, content of activities assigned) and extrinsic (remuneration,
career possibilities) (Sire, 1993). The concept of instrumentality suggests that
individuals are poorly motivated when they do not believe that training will lead to
improvements in their work, career or remuneration (Clark et al., 1993; Facteau et al.,
1995; Noe, 1986). Indeed, French workers rarely perceive their participation in training
as a stepping-stone to change or to adaptation to professional situations. This perception
is accentuated by lay-offs and difŽ culties in changing positions, which has created an
association between training and job insecurity (Formation Emploi, 1998). In
consequence, workers do not necessarily perceive training as useful for their personal
development; their interest in the programmes declines accordingly. The concept of
instrumentality illustrates the extent to which this attitude is present in this group of
workers.
Now that the dimensions of training motivation have been clariŽ ed, we will attempt
to determine their capacity to explain the effectiveness of a training programme.

Training motivation as an explanatory variable of training success

The success criteria of a training programme To measure the success of a training
programme, many researchers have used Kirkpatrick’s model (1959a, b, 1960a, b),
which proposes four criteria for evaluating training:
1 Reactions, or satisfaction with training: intended to evaluate the trainee’s opinions
about training, along with their satisfaction and appreciation.
2 Learning: intended to determine whether the content of training has been assimilated
by the trainees. It evaluates ‘the learning of principles, facts, techniques, and attitudes
that were speciŽ ed as training objectives’, generally by means of objective and
quantiŽ able measures (Kirkpatrick, 1959b).
3 Behaviour at work: this variable measures the transfer of knowledge to the work
situation. Kirkpatrick (1960a) includes here newly demonstrated behaviours and
attitudes, skills acquired, and all other forms of change.
4 Organizational results: the attainment of company objectives such as cost reduction,
personnel turnover and absenteeism, along with the return on the training
investment.
Criteria 1 and 2 are the direct consequences of training motivation because they can
be measured as soon as the training programme is completed. In contrast, criteria 3 and
4 are dependent on other variables such as motivation to transfer knowledge or the
transfer climate (Noe, 1986; Tracey et al., 1995; Burke and Baldwin, 1999).
Consequently, no hierarchy exists among the criteria. Alliger et al. (Alliger and Janak,
1989; Alliger et al., 1997) found that the correlation of scores obtained for each of the
four criteria are weak2 and training effectiveness can therefore be explained by a
number of factors. In general, depending on the training objectives, earlier studies have
been limited to measuring either satisfaction and learning or transfer.
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 991
As described above, a lack of training motivation has been observed in the worker
population. This is why we are studying the success of a training programme in light of
the Ž rst two criteria of Kirkpatrick’s model: satisfaction and learning. Satisfaction is
generally measured at the end of a training seminar. The information gathered concerns
not only the content, but also the teaching methods and the reception. The assessment
of learning relies on a set of evaluation tools that can be used at different times.
Measurement may focus on knowledge, behaviour or aptitudes. Depending on the
research project, tests, role playing or multiple-choice questionnaires are used in
measurement (for a review of evaluation tools, see Warr et al., 1999).

Impact of training motivation on training success Empirical research that has

tested the impact of training motivation (measured by self-efŽ cacy and instrumentality)
on training success (measured by satisfaction and knowledge acquisition) has achieved
highly satisfactory results.
Bandura’s posited link with self-efŽ cacy has been conŽ rmed in a number of areas,
including executive development (Bandura and Jourden, 1991), management (Gist,
1989), computing (Gist et al., 1989; Martocchio and Webster, 1992), interpersonal
relations (Gist et al., 1991), and military training (Eden and Ravid, 1982; Eden and
Shani, 1982; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Mathieu et al. (1993) and Quinones (1995)
found a positive relationship between self-efŽ cacy and both learning and
satisfaction.
The hypothesis of a link with instrumentality has been put forth frequently, but tested
less often. It nonetheless yields encouraging results. Baldwin and Karl (1987) found a
positive relationship with post-seminar learning. In contrast, Mathieu et al. (1992)
reported a link with satisfaction, but not with learning. We will nonetheless test the
hypothesis of a positive relationship with these two outcome variables.
Training motivation among French workers has attracted our attention because it
purportedly accounts for training success. Below we reiterate the main hypotheses that
we have formulated in the introduction. Following the review of the literature, we can
now further extend the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Training motivation, measured by the concepts of self-efŽ cacy and

instrumentality, has a positive in uence on satisfaction of French
workers in a training programme.
Hypothesis 2: Training motivation, measured by the concepts of self-efŽ cacy and
instrumentality, has a positive in uence on learning of French
workers in a training programme.

Antecedents of training motivation

In general, training motivation is in uenced by two types of variables, those related to
personal history – individual variables – and those linked to the prevailing work context
– organizational variables (Mathieu and Martineau, 1997; Warr et al., 1999).

Individual variables In terms of academic background, French workers display

similar levels: none have completed post-secondary education. We have therefore
limited our study to demographic variables. Age and seniority at the company are
variables that can change attitudes towards continuing training. In effect, at the onset of
training, employees’ levels of motivation vary depending on their perception of the
usefulness of the training and its transferability to their work (instrumentality). These
992 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
perceptions result from the sum of their experiences, i.e. from age and seniority. For
example, motivation was observed to be lower among older workers. This group Ž nds
it considerably more difŽ cult to learn than their younger colleagues. In particular with
regard to new technologies, this difŽ culty is associated with a lack of conŽ dence in their
learning abilities (Gist et al., 1988).
The impact of age and seniority on training has already been tested. Yet these tests
have never yielded totally conclusive results in terms of explaining training motivation
(Ford et al., 1993; Guthrie and Schwoerer, 1994). Nonetheless, a negative relationship
has been established between age, seniority and satisfaction and post-seminar
knowledge (Wolf et al., 1995; Mathieu and Martineau, 1997). That is why we believe
that it is worth testing the explanatory capacities of these two variables, whether in a
direct or indirect (through training motivation) relationship with training success.

Hypothesis 3a: Age and seniority have a negative in uence on training success.
Hypothesis 3b: Age and seniority have a negative in uence on variables of training
motivation.

Organizational variables A number of studies analysed the organizational context to

explain the level of training motivation. Beginning with the earliest works on this
theme, the question of the in uence of voluntary participation has been raised. The
training programme may be imposed by the hierarchy (mandatory) or chosen by the
individual (voluntary). Ryman and Biesner (1975) were the Ž rst to document the
in uence of voluntary action on training efforts as a measure of motivation. Hicks and
Klimoski (1987), Cohen (1990) and Facteau et al. (1995) subsequently reached similar
conclusions. The relationship was also veriŽ ed with the concept of self-efŽ cacy
(Mathieu et al., 1993; Quinones, 1995) and instrumentality (Clark et al. 1993).
Nonetheless, Baldwin and Magjuka (1997) suggested that voluntary participation in
training programmes is not always the most efŽ cient attendance principle. They
determined that, among engineering trainees, those who perceive training as mandatory
demonstrate a greater intention to apply the training than do those who view their
attendance as optional. However, given that our study examines workers who are
reluctant to train, the hypothesis that voluntary participation has a positive in uence on
training motivation seems worth retaining.

Hypothesis 4: Voluntary participation has a positive in uence on variables of

training motivation.

A second theme concerns communication transmitted regarding training. The

perception of having received pertinent information about training, its usefulness,
objectives and quality has been shown to be positively related to self-efŽ cacy (Ilgen et
al., 1979; Bandura and Cervone, 1983, 1986). Moreover, trainees apparently assign
high instrumentality scores if training is recommended or required by a person they
consider credible (Clark et al., 1993).

Hypothesis 5: Detailed supportive information concerning training has a positive

in uence on training motivation.

Support for training programmes from the work environment is the third organiza-
tional variable frequently discussed in the research. This support may encompass
emphasis on the value of training programmes, setting skills development objectives
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 993
and providing considerable post-seminar autonomy. Support may issue from various
members of the organization: management, colleagues, subordinates, etc. However, it is
encouragement from the hierarchical supervisor that reportedly has the greatest impact
on training motivation, with a positive link with instrumentality found by Clark et al.
(1993) and Guthrie and Schwoerer (1994). In addition, Noe and Wilk (1996) achieved
similar results with self-efŽ cacy.

Hypothesis 6: Support from the hierarchical supervisor has a positive in uence on
training motivation.

Methodology
To test the six hypotheses that ensue from the review of the literature, two surveys were
conducted. A preliminary survey was carried out to identify the level of training
motivation among the workers tested. The second survey allowed veriŽ cation of the
main hypotheses of this research, concerning the impact of motivation on training
outcome (hypotheses 1 and 2).

Sample
The preliminary sample consisted of employees of three large companies and trainees
at a training organization. A questionnaire was administered to 370 respondents who
were about to begin a training programme. The Ž nal sample was compiled based on
level of education: only responses of individuals who had at most a Brevet
Professionnel (BEP) or a CertiŽ cat d’Aptitude Professionnelle (CAP)3 were retained.
The sample includes 335 questionnaires distributed as follows: 72 employees of an
automobile company; 87 of a machinery company; 21 of a nuclear company; and 86 of
a training organization. The workers are male, with an average age of 36. Average
seniority is 13.5 years. The training in which they participate is technical, and intended
to develop skills. Each training programme lasted for approximately one week. It
included a theoretical section and practical work in the shop or on mock-ups.
The main survey was intended to test hypotheses 1 and 2, which pertain to the
relationship between training motivation and training outcome. It was conducted among
eighty-seven interns at the machinery company who completed the preliminary survey.
The objective was to compare the answers relating to training motivation with the post-
seminar results observed.

Measures
Training motivation During the preliminary survey, training motivation was meas-
ured by means of the concepts of self-efŽ cacy and instrumentality, using a 5-point
Likert scale.
The self-efŽ cacy scale contains seven items inspired by the questionnaires of Guthrie
and Schwoerer (1994) and Quinones (1995). It has a satisfactory reliability score
(a 5 .8087). In accordance with earlier studies, we found a one-dimensional factorial
structure (Table 2).
The instrumentality scale was constructed based on that of Baldwin and Karl (1987).
It includes ten items that evaluate the way in which individuals judge that their training
success will enable them to attain various objectives. Factorial analysis revealed two
dimensions (Table 2) concerning the anticipated results of training with regard to skills
994 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
development (seven items; a 5 .8592) and professional advancement (three items;
a 5 .7579). These two dimensions of instrumentality mirror the distinction between
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that emerged from the review of the literature. Such a
distinction has already been raised by Nordhaug (1989), in a study of anticipated
rewards of training for Norwegian employees. In our study, the employees Ž rst
identiŽ ed intrinsic rewards related to skills development. Training is then perceived as
a means of obtaining immediate rewards at the workplace, i.e. job tasks and
responsibilities. The employees then identify extrinsic rewards related to salary
progression and career perspectives.
These results show the pertinence of the concepts of self-efŽ cacy and instrumentality
in understanding training motivation. In addition to measuring concepts related to
training motivation, the preliminary study took into account the explanatory variables of
this motivation. Age and seniority in the company were retained as individual variables.
Organizational variables were measured using a 5-point Likert scale that includes
seventeen items adapted from the questionnaires of Guthrie and Schwoerer (1994) and
Facteau et al. (1995). Factorial analysis identiŽ ed the three dimensions described in the
theoretical section (Table 2). The Ž rst axis (four items; a 5 .6534) represents the
training policy regarding voluntary action. The second axis includes four items that are
representative of the way in which training is presented to the workers (a 5 .7075).
Lastly, the third axis includes nine items related to support from the hierarchy with
regard to training and skills development (a 5 .8631).

Training outcome The results of training were measured by a second survey.

SpeciŽ cally, we administered the measurement tools that the company uses to study the
effectiveness of its training programmes. To measure satisfaction with training, the
company uses a 6-item questionnaire. Factorial analysis revealed a one-dimensional
structure of the questionnaire used with a relatively low degree of reliability (Table 3,
a 5 .6432).
To measure learning, the company uses multiple-choice questionnaires. These
questionnaires are developed in collaboration with the trainers, technicians and
engineers, to ensure the pertinence of the questions. An identical questionnaire is
completed at the beginning and end of each training programme. This questionnaire
(twenty to forty questions) covers the technical knowledge and its practical implementa-
tion. For each seminar, the speciŽ c questionnaire is distributed twice4 to the trainees.
Table 3 presents a few items from the questionnaire administered in an electronics
development internship intended for workers who wanted to progress in the pay
schedule. To measure learning, we calculated the difference between the two marks
attained: prior to and following training. The scores observed follow a normal law
(skewness test 5 .807; kurtosis test 5 .365).
The measures that we applied are similar to those of earlier studies on training
effectiveness. To measure satisfaction, most authors use questionnaires that include
between two and thirty-three items, with reliability scores ranging from .60 to .97.
Whereas some authors are mainly interested in the reactions of trainees to the
organization and the content of the training (Russell et al., 1984; Noe and Schmitt,
1986; Baldwin, 1992), others (Latham and Saari, 1979; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986)
have investigated trainees’ satisfaction with the usefulness of the training at work (work
better, more efŽ ciently). Moreover, the learning measurement tools found in the
literature are similar to those that we have used. For example, other authors have
administered tests of knowledge – essays or questionnaires (in 41.6 per cent of cases),
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 995
Table 2 Factorial analyses by main components

Variables and items in the preliminary survey F1 F2 F3

Self-efŽ cacy
1 I have good learning abilities .589
2 It takes me time to assimilate the contents of training .668
3 I Ž nd it hard to understand theoretical explanations .721
4 If the course is too abstract, I easily get lost .871
5 I Ž nd writing easy .779
6 I can easily memorize the course materials .743
7 I am able to follow even if the trainer goes quickly .623
Percentage of variance explained .543
Alpha coefŽ cient .8087
Instrumentality: importance of training results for:
1 Personal satisfaction .671 .068
2 Autonomy at work .748 .057
3 Personal knowledge .571 .302
4 Acquisition of skills .635 .312
5 Self-conŽ dence at work .753 .202
6 EfŽ ciency at work .821 .233
7 Adaptation at work .749 .237
8 Salary increase .322 .673
9 Professional advancement .085 .843
10 My future .193 .858
Percentage of variance explained .458 .136
Alpha coefŽ cient .8592 .7579
Organizational variables
Voluntary participation
1 I was free to choose which training I will attend .656 .114 .157
2 I was enrolled in training without being consulted .701 –.005 .141
3 My requests for training were addressed .664 .256 .001
4 I asked for this training .765 .009 .004
Presentation of training
1 I decided with my supervisor how the training would help
me at work .100 .720 .268
2 I was aware of the contents of the internship .009 .596 .004
3 I know how I will use this training at work .006 .621 –.003
4 I prepared in advance for this internship .006 .711 .345
Support from the hierarchical supervisor
1 My supervisor proposes training that is likely to interest
me .255 .373 .634
2 My participation in training is considered an asset for the
work team .256 –.139 .610
3 My supervisor encourages me to acquire new skills .191 –.002 .549
4 Compared with the other managers, my supervisor makes
an effort to train his/her staff .262 –.127 .604
5 My supervisor often lets me attend training .002 .236 .829
6 At work I am given the means to apply the training .006 .173 .792
7 My supervisor checks whether I put in practice what I
learn in training .005 .160 .732
8 My supervisor encourages me to train –.004 .009 .686
9 My supervisor lets me evolve –.003 .191 .704
Percentage of variance explained .131 .127 .255
Alpha coefŽ cient .6534 .7075 .8631
996 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Table 3 Measures of training outcome

Measures of training results

Satisfaction F1
1 The content information that I had before the internship was sufŽ cient .663
2 I had the necessary knowledge to carry out this internship .669
3 I found the theory/practice distribution well adapted to the internship .551
4 The quality of the trainer was satisfactory .601
5 The physical conditions (hotel, reception, restaurant) were satisfactory .559
6 I am satisŽ ed with the contents of the internship .694
Percentage of variance explained .672
Alpha coefŽ cient .6432

Knowledge
1 What is the 2000 E sales force controller called?
2 How many cabins are there in a group equipped with a MCS 220 controller?
3 Describe the role of EEPROM memory.
4 Can the electronic card that ensures the OCSS function control network phases?
5 On a 2-speed machine, can stop precision be regulated by a test tool?
6 How many integrated relays are there on an LCB_II card?
7 Can a ‘remote’ function normally with all its ‘straps’ cut?
8 How many ‘Line Terminators’ are there on a simplex MCS 220 installation?
9 According to the installation, the card ensuring the OCSS function can be supplied
in 24 VAC or 30VDC.
11 Is the SOM card necessary on a ‘Duplex’ installation with one call column per
machine?
12 Does increasing the IPU-D parameter decrease the levelling speed?

simulation and role playing (33.3 per cent of cases). Other learning measures largely
involve self-evaluation by the interns (for a review, see Guerrero, 1998). Therefore,
despite their limitations, the measures that we have used facilitate comparison of the
results of our research with earlier Ž ndings.

Results and discussion

Descriptive analyses

Tables 4 and 5 present the correlation scores of the preliminary survey, followed by the
main survey. The correlation data show that age and seniority in the company are
collinear (.689, p , .01, and .0880, p , .01). We therefore exclude seniority from our
explanatory analyses (variable 7). Moreover, Table 5 shows collinearity between the
two dimensions of instrumentality (.711, p , .01). Accordingly, we have excluded
variable 2 (extrinsic rewards), because it does present a signiŽ cant correlation with the
other variables.
The examination of the means obtained for the variables of self-efŽ cacy and
instrumentality indicate that French workers are more optimistic about the value of
training for their skills (m 5 4.32) and for their career (m 5 3.69), than they are about
their aptitude to succeed in training (m 5 3.46). These results are consistent with the
characteristics of the population studied: employees who lack skills have little
conŽ dence in their ability to learn.
Table 4 Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables of the preliminary survey

Mean Stand. dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Self-eff. 3.4636 .6971 1.000

2 Extr. instr. 3.6940 1.0774 –.133* 1.000
3 Intr. instr. 4.3216 .6128 .050 .443*** 1.000
4 Info. 3.6532 .9574 .105 .184** .298*** 1.000
5 Volun. 3.3821 .9232 –.025 .092 .151** .255*** 1.000
6 Support 3.6795 .8811 .008 .239*** .187** .338*** .392*** 1.000
7 Seniority 2.27 .98 –.156* –.041 –.044 –.098 .029 –.072 1.000
8 Age 2.51 .92 –.122* –.117* –.064 –.037 –.024 –.097 .689** 1.000
* p, .05; ** p, .01; *** p, .001.

Table 5 Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables of the main survey

Mean Stand. dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Self–eff. 3.5833 .7008 1.000

2 Extr instr. 4.1505 .5405 .058 1.000
3 Intr. instr. 3.7797 .6851 .110 .711** 1.000
4 Learning 6.21 2.43 .311** .040 .287** 1.000
5 Satisfac. 3.016 .9965 –.008 .162 .404** .289** 1.000
6 Age 2.37 .99 –.213* .075 –.140 –.390** –.071 1.000
7 Seniority 2.01 .95 –.239* .099 –.088 –.369** –.095 .880** 1.000
Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train

* p, .05; ** p, .01; *** p, .001.

997
998 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Impact of training motivation on training outcome

To explain the training results, a stepwise multiple regression was performed on the
data collected in the second survey. In accordance with the hypotheses and conclusions
of the correlation analysis, four variables were entered in the regression equation: age
(and, through collinearity, seniority); self-efŽ cacy; instrumentality with regard to
intrinsic rewards (and, through collinearity, extrinsic); and learning.
Self-efŽ cacy and instrumentality represent variables of training motivation. Learning
has been considered as both a variable to be explained, in keeping with our theoretical
approach, and a variable that explains satisfaction (Table 6). The latter approach is
technically possible because satisfaction was measured after the responses to the
learning test were measured and analysed. We thus respect the constraint of anteriority,
which is necessary for a variable to be considered explanatory of another variable.
The results obtained engender encouraging conclusions. The variables introduced
explain 26.7 per cent and 29.4 per cent of the variance of satisfaction and learning
(F 5 10.195, p , .001; F 5 9.364, p , .001). Table 6 shows that satisfaction can be
explained by instrumentality. Our results conŽ rm those obtained by Mathieu et al.
(1992). Nonetheless, self-efŽ cacy is not explanatory of satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 is
therefore only partly validated. It should also be noted that the level of learning
observed has a positive in uence on satisfaction with the training programme. It is
reassuring to note that the more the employees take advantage of the training offered,
the more they claim to be satisŽ ed. Lastly, age and seniority have no apparent impact
on satisfaction with the training programme.
Concerning our main hypothesis (hypothesis 2), the results tend to validate the
relationship between training motivation and learning in training. Self-efŽ cacy is
positively linked to learning, conŽ rming earlier work on this theme (Bandura and
Jourden, 1991; Gist, 1989; Martocchio and Webster, 1992; Tannenbaum et al., 1991).
In the same vein, a positive relationship with instrumentality is manifested, corroborat-
ing the Ž ndings of Baldwin and Karl (1987). This hypothesis is arguably of greatest
value to practitioners. In effect, this validation conŽ rms that belief in one’s capacity to
complete training successfully has a positive in uence on learning within a training
programme. Moreover, age is negatively related to learning, partly validating
hypothesis 3a. It therefore appears that age and seniority are variables to consider in
training decisions. Older employees therefore have more difŽ culties learning than do
their younger colleagues.

Table 6 Training motivation and training outcome

Satisfaction Learning

Explanatory variables b t b t

Age –.015 0.978 –.312 –3.191**

Self-efŽ cacy .198 1.756 .220 2.263*
Intrinsic instr. .338 3.228** .219 2.275*
Learning .212 2.023* n.e5 n.e.
R2 .288 .321
Adjusted R2 .267 .294
Overall model F 10.195*** 9.364***
* p, .05; ** p, .01; *** p, .001.
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 999
Given that the impact of training motivation on training outcome has been validated,
it is worth understanding how it is possible to develop this motivation among workers.
The data gathered during the preliminary study will be useful in this respect.

Explanatory variables of training motivation

A second stepwise regression was performed to test hypotheses 3b, 4, 5 and 6. The data
correspond to the answers provided by the French workers during the preliminary study
(N 5 335).
With regard to hypothesis 3b, the data give rise to several conclusions (Table 7):
c age (and, through collinearity, seniority) is negatively related to self-efŽ cacy;
c age (and, through collinearity, seniority) is negatively related to the feeling that
training affects one’s career (instrumentality related to extrinsic rewards);
c age has no signiŽ cant relationship with the workers’ perception that training
in uences skills development (instrumentality with regard to intrinsic rewards).
Although consistent with our expectations, the results are nonetheless ground-
breaking. Earlier studies suggested such relationships without validating them (Mathieu
and Martineau, 1997). To our knowledge, our research provides the Ž rst empirical
conŽ rmation of the impact of age on training programmes. Older workers tend to
exhibit greater doubt about their ability to learn, and see training as less of a
springboard for their career and their future than do their younger colleagues. But, in
France, age and seniority of workers do not in uence the perception that training can
help them develop their skills and improve their efŽ ciency at work.
Concerning the impact of the organizational context on training motivation
(hypotheses 4, 5 and 6), our results partly conŽ rm hypothesis 4 on voluntary
participation. In effect, voluntary action is signiŽ cantly linked with instrumentality
relating exclusively to intrinsic rewards (b 5 .10, p , .05). Again, it should be noted
that this variable ranks third in the model.
This is the most counter-intuitive result that our data reveals. If our study conŽ rms
the results obtained by Mathieu et al. (1992), it nonetheless runs counter to other
research that found a positive relationship with self-efŽ cacy (Mathieu et al., 1993;
Quinones, 1995), and with instrumentality (Clark et al., 1993). In contrast with the
English students and engineers tested in the earlier studies, French workers do not share

Table 7 Explanatory variables of training motivation

Self-efŽ cacy Intrinsic instr. Extrinsic instr.

Explanatory variables b t b t b t
Individual variables
Age –.11 –2.067* –.08 1.683 –.11 –2.251**
Organizational variables
Voluntary participation .07 1.543 .10 2.026* .06 1.268
Training information .14 2.614** .24 4.647*** .12 2.355*
Supervisor support .09 1.765 .14 2.791** .20 3.900***

R2 .055 .102 .088

Adjusted R2 .049 .094 .080
Overall model F 5.966** 11.165*** 9.375***
* p, .05; ** p, .01; *** p, .001.
1000 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
the perception of voluntary participation. They consider that voluntary action is
important only if it allows selection of the training that meets personal interests and
compensates for professional insufŽ ciency.
Hypothesis 5 is validated. The way in which the training is portrayed in uences self-
efŽ cacy and instrumentality. This variable appears to be the management practice with
the best explanatory power with regard to training motivation, along with self-efŽ cacy
(b 5 .14, p , .01) and instrumentality with regard to intrinsic rewards (b 5 .24,
p , .000). It ranks second in terms of instrumentality of extrinsic rewards (b 5 .12,
p , .05).
Lastly, hypothesis 6 concerning the in uence of support of the hierarchical
supervisor is veriŽ ed for the two dimensions of instrumentality (b 5 .20, p , .001, and
b 5 .14, p , .01 respectively). Hierarchical support also plays a signiŽ cant role in the
training motivation of unskilled workers, as earlier studies have demonstrated (Clark et
al., 1993; Guthrie and Schwoerer, 1994). In contrast, support has no impact on self-
efŽ cacy. Encouragement from the entourage therefore reinforces the perception of the
value of training, but does not modify workers’ conŽ dence in their ability to succeed in
training.
It is important to note that the models obtained, although of good quality (F 5 5.97,
p , .01; F 5 11.16, p , .001; F 5 9.37, p , .001), explain only a small part of the
variance in training motivation (5 per cent to 9.5 per cent). Therefore, other variables
must explain training motivation among French workers, as prior studies concluded. We
have noted that adjusted R2 have not been systematically discussed (Clark et al., 1993;
Facteau et al., 1995; Mathieu et al., 1997). When they are, the variance in behaviour
explained is hardly better than for our study (Guthrie and Schwoerer, 1994), and, in
some cases, worse (Tracey et al., 1995).

Implication for further research

Several of our Ž ndings are of interest to practitioners who are developing the skills of
unskilled personnel. For one, our work highlights the importance of using motivational
constructs in assessing the effectiveness of a training programme. We show that training
motivation can be approached through the concepts of self-efŽ cacy (believing in one’s
own capacities) and instrumentality (knowing that the effort exerted will be rewarded).
The main conclusions of our research are that these two concepts provide a measure
of training motivation that reveals the in uence of this concept in the direct outcome
of a training programme: learning and satisfaction experienced by the beneŽ ciary
(Figure 1).
We have also elucidated the weight of certain variables in explaining the differences
in workers’ level of training motivation (Figure 1). This study conŽ rms that support
from the hierarchical supervisor and the way in which the training programme is
presented play important roles. In contrast, volunteering for a training programme has
a lesser explanatory power. It appears signiŽ cant only in that it allows selection of
training that can offset professional insufŽ ciency. Lastly, our study reveals the
importance of age and seniority in the success of a training programme. Older workers
are apparently less conŽ dent in their learning abilities, and consequently succeed more
poorly in the knowledge test compared with younger workers. By implication, it could
be useful to put in place a speciŽ c follow-up of older populations, if their skills are to
be developed.
Although compelling, these results must nonetheless be applied prudently owing to
the speciŽ c limitations of the study. Our research was conducted using qualitative scales
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 1001

Figure 1 Summary of results obtained (hypotheses validated)

for which we have presumed a homogeneity of respondents’ perceptions. Evidently, this

homogeneity must not be considered a given. Moreover, the measure of training success
remains fairly simple. The knowledge tests administered in this study cannot predict the
way in which this knowledge is applied at the workplace. In addition, the level of
explanation of training motivation is insufŽ cient. Whereas the measure of training
motivation explained approximately 30 per cent of the variance in the level of
knowledge acquisition and more than 25 per cent of satisfaction variance, which
corresponds to a result that far exceeds our expectations, the results of the preliminary
survey are more disappointing.
The latter outcome has prompted us to envision numerous extensions of our work.
Other variables should be investigated, to improve motivation in training programmes.
Possible avenues include:
1 Integrating other individual variables to enrich our model. Locus of control, job
involvement, organizational commitment and career-related attitudes are often
considered to be variables that underlie motivation. It could be interesting to
investigate these factors in future research on training motivation among French
workers.
2 Introducing new measures pertaining to the organizational context, such as
perception of procedural equity, organizational culture or remuneration of training
activities.
3 It would be worthwhile to expand the notion of training motivation. We have focused
on the concepts of instrumentality and self-efŽ cacy. Yet one could pursue the inquiry
with an examination of valence and need for achievement. In addition, we have not
attempted to measure effort. This is a research avenue that other scholars have
followed, and one that can supplement the approach we have adopted.

Notes
1 On average, 2 per cent of the payroll is allocated annually to training. In total, 62.4 per cent of
French companies organize training activities, giving 37 per cent of workers access to training
programmes.
1002 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
2 The average correlation is .07 between levels 1 and 2, 0.13 and 0.19 between levels 2 and 3, and
3 and 4, respectively .
3 Equivalent to a certiŽ cate of vocational studies at secondary-school level.
4 Prior to and following the seminar.
5 Not entered in the multiple regression equation

References

Adams, J. (1963) ‘Toward an Understanding of Inequity’, Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology , 67(5): 422–36.
Alliger, G. and Janak, E. (1989) ‘Kirkpatrick ’s Levels of Training Criteria: Thirty Years Later’,
Personnel Psychology, 42: 331–42.
Alliger, G., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W., Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997) ‘A Meta-Analysis
of the Relations among Training Criteria’, Personnel Psychology, 50: 341–58.
Aventur, F. and Hanchane, S. (1999) ‘Inégalités d’accès et pratiques de formation continue dans
les entreprises françaises’, Formation Emploi, 66: 5–20.
Baldwin, T. (1992) ‘Effects of Alternative Modeling Strategies on Outcomes of Interpersona l
Skills Training’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2): 147–54.
Baldwin, T. and Ford, J. (1988) ‘Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research’, Personnel Psychology, 41: 63–95.
Baldwin, T. and Karl, K. (1987) ‘The Development and Empirical Tests of a Measure for
Assessing Motivation to Learn in Management Education’, Academy of Management Best
Papers Proceeding s: 117–21, 47th Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
Baldwin, T. and Magjuka, R. (1997) ‘Organizational Context and Training Effectiveness ’. In
Ford, K., Kozlowski, S., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M. (eds) Improving Training
Effectiveness in Work Organization s, Vol. 5. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 99–128.
Baldwin, T., Magjuka, R. and Loher, B. (1991) ‘The Perils of Participation: Effects of Choice of
Training on Trainee Motivation and Learning’, Personnel Psychology, 44: 51–65.
Bandura, A. (1977) L’apprentissage Social. Brussels: Mardaga.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Action and Thought. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983) ‘Self-evaluative and SELF-EFFICACY Mechanism s
Governing the Motivational Effects of Goal Systems’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 45(5): 1017–28.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1986) ‘Differential Engagement of Self-reactive In uences in
Cognitive Motivation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38:
92–113.
Bandura, A. and Jourden, F. (1991) ‘Self-regulatory Mechanisms Governing the Impact of Social
Comparison on Complex Decision Making’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60(6): 941–51.
Burke, L. and Baldwin, T. (1999) ‘Workforce Training Transfer: A Study of the Effect of Relapse
Prevention Training and Transfer Climate’, Human Resource Management, 38(3): 227–42.
Campbell, J. and Pritchard, R. (1976) ‘Motivation Theory in Industrial and Organizationa l
Psychology ’, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3. Chicago: Rand
McNally, pp. 63–130.
Clark, C., Dobbins, G. and Ladd, R. (1993) ‘Exploratory Field Study of Training Motivation’,
Group and Organization Management, 18(3): 292–307.
Cohen, D. (1990) ‘What Motivates Trainees?’, Training and Development Journal, November:
91–93.
DARES (1998) ‘La formation professionnelle en 1995–1996’, Les dossiers de la DARES,
21(2).
Demart, M. (1986) ‘Un probl ème d’hommes, un probl ème de soci été’, Migrants Formation, 64:
47–52.
 Guerrero and Sire: Motivation to train 1003
Eden, D. and Ravid, G. (1982) ‘Pygmalion versus Self–expectancy: Effects of Instructor- and
Self-expectancy on Trainee Performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
30: 351–364.
Eden, D. and Shani, A. (1982) ‘Pygmalion Goes to Boot Camp: Expectancy, Leadership, and
Trainee Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2): 194–9.
Eurostat (1999) ‘Chiffres-cl és sur la formation professionnelle dans l’Union Européenne’,
CEDEFOP, Education Formation Jeunesse.
Facteau, J., Dobbins, G., Russell, J., Ladd, R. and Kudish, J. (1995) ‘The In uence of General
Perceptions of the Training Environment on Pretraining Motivation and Perceived Training
Transfer’, Journal of Management, 21(1): 1–25.
Ford, K., Smith, E., Sego, D. and Quinones, M. (1993) ‘Impact of Task Experience and Individual
Factors on Training Emphasis Ratings’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 45: 511–27.
Ford, K., Kozlowski, S., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M. (1997) Improving Training
Effectiveness in Work Organization s. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Formation-Emploi (1998) Dossier ‘Exclusion et Formation’, 62: 49–71.
Gist, M. (1989) ‘The In uence of Training Method on SELF-EFFICACY and Idea Generation
among Managers’, Personnel Psychology, 42: 787–805.
Gist, M., Rosen, B. and Schwoerer, C. (1988) ‘The In uence of Training Method and Trainee Age
on the Acquisition of Computer Skills’, Personnel Psychology, 41: 255–65.
Gist, M., Schwoerer, C. and Rosen, B. (1989) ‘Effects of Alternative Training Methods on SELF-
EFFICACY and Performance in Computer Software Training’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
74(6): 884–91.
Gist, C., Stevens, C. and Bavetta, A. (1991) ‘Effects of SELF-EFFICACY and Post-trainin g
Intervention on the Acquisition and Maintenance of Complex Interpersonnel Skills’, Personnel
Psychology , 44: 837–62.
Goldstein, I. (1991) ‘Training in Work Organizations ’, Handbook of Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, Vol. 9. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp. 507–619.
Guerrero, S. (1998) ‘Les Conditions de l’efŽ cacit é des actions de formation continue: le cas du
personnel ouvrier’, thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion, Universit é Toulouse I.
Guthrie, J. and Schwoerer, C. (1994) ‘Individual and Contextual In uences on Self-assessed
Training Needs’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5): 405–22.
Hicks, W. and Klimoski, R. (1987) ‘Entry into Training Programmes and Its Effects on Training
Outcomes: A Field Experiment’, Academy of Management Journal, 30(3): 542–52.
Ilgen, D., Fisher, C. and Taylor, S. (1979) ‘Consequences of Individual Feedback on Behavior in
Organizations ’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4): 349–71.
INSEE (2000) ‘Investir dans la formation continue’, INSEE Première, 697(February) .
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959a) ‘Techniques for Evaluating Training Programmes’, Journal of ASTD,
13(11): 3–9.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959b) ‘Techniques for Evaluating Training Programmes’, Journal of ASTD,
13(12): 21–6.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1960a) ‘Techniques for Evaluating Training Programmes’, Journal of ASTD,
14(1): 13–18.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1960b) ‘Techniques for Evaluating Training Programmes’, Journal of ASTD,
14(2): 28–32.
Latham, G. and Saari, L. (1979) ‘Application of Social Learning Theory to Training Supervisors
through Behavioral Modeling’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3): 239–46.
Martocchio, J. and Webster, J. (1992) ‘Effects of Feedback and Cognitive Playfulness on
Performance in Microcomputer Software Training’, Personnel Psychology, 45: 553–78.
Mathieu, J. and Martineau, J. (1997) ‘Individual and Situational In uences in Training
Motivation’. In Ford, K., Kozlowski, S., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M. (eds)
Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organization s. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mathieu, J., Tannenbaum, S. and Salas, E. (1992) ‘In uences of Individual and Situational
Characteristics on Measures of Training Effectiveness’, Academy of Management Journal,
35(4): 828–39.
1004 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Mathieu, J., Martineau, J. and Tannenbaum, S. (1993) ‘Individual and Situational In uences on
the Development of SELF-EFFICACY: Implications for Training Effectiveness’, Personnel
Psychology , 46: 125–47.
Maurer, T. and Tarulli, B. (1994) ‘Investigation of Perceived Environment, Perceived Outcome,
and Person Variables in Relationship to Voluntary Development Activity by Employees’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 3–14.
Noe, R. (1986) ‘Trainee’s Attributes and Attitudes: Neglected In uence on Training Effective-
ness’, Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 736–49.
Noe, R. and Schmitt, S. (1986) ‘Trainee’s Attributes and Attitudes: Neglected In uence on
Training Effectiveness’, Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 736–49.
Noe, R. and Wilk, S. (1993) ‘Investigation of the Factors that In uence Employees’ Participatio n
in Development Activities’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 291–302.
Nordhaug, O. (1989) ‘Reward Functions of Personnel Training’, Human Relations, 42(5):
373–88.
Padé, D. (1992) ‘Histoires de vie: un passage possible vers l’insertion et la formation des faibles
niveaux’, Education Permanente, 111: 167–71.
Performances Humaines et Techniques (1994) Dossier ‘Formation’, July–August: 71.
Porter, L. and Lawler, E. (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.
Quinones, M. (1995) ‘Pretraining Context Effects: Training Assignment as Feedback’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(2): 226–38.
Russell, J., Wexley, K. and Hunter, J. (1984) ‘Questioning the Effectiveness of Behavior
Modeling Training in an Industrial Setting’, Personnel Psychology, 37: 465–81.
Ryman, D. and Biesner, R. (1975) ‘Attitudes Predictive of Diving Training Success’, Personnel
Psychology , 287: 181–8.
Sire, B. (1993) Gestion Stratégique des Rémunérations. Paris: Editions Liaisons.
Sorel, M. (1991) L’éducabilité cognitive: une nouvelle compr éhension des conduites d’apprentis -
sage. Vol. 1. Paris: Universit é René Descartes.
Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1991) Motivation and Work Behavior, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Tannenbaum, S. and Yukl, G. (1992) ‘Training and Development in Work Organizations ’, Annual
Review of Psychology, 43: 399–441.
Tannenbaum, S., Mathieu, J., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bower, J. (1991) ‘Meeting Trainees’
Expectations: The In uence of Training FulŽ llment on the Development of Commitment,
SELF-EFFICACY, and Motivation’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6): 759–69.
Tracey, B., Tannenbaum, S. and Kavanagh, M. (1995) ‘Applying Trained Skills on the Job: The
Importance of the Work Environment’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2): 239–52.
Vroom, V. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Warr, P., Allan, C. and Birdi, K. (1999) ‘Predicting Three Levels of Training Outcome’, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 351–75.
Wexley, K. and Baldwin, T. (1986) ‘Post-training Strategies for Facilitating Positive Transfer: an
Empirical Exploration ’, Academy of Management Journal, 29(3): 503–20.
Wolf, G., London, M. and Pufahl, J. (1995) ‘Career Experience and Motivation as Predictors of
Training Behaviors and Outcomes for Displaced Engineers’, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
47: 316–33.