Rethinking Training Effectiveness: Developing a Sequential Conceptual Framework Linking Training Modalities to Workplace Outcomes

Although training effectiveness has received substantial attention within the workplace training literature, limited research has explained adult learning, training evaluation, social learning, and organisational processes in an integrated way to explain how training interventions influence organisational outcomes.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to propose the Sequential Training Effectiveness Framework (STEF), a comprehensive training effectiveness framework developed by integrating complementary assumptions and elements of Andragogy, Experiential Learning Theory, Transformative Learning Theory, Social Learning Theory, Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Evaluation Model, and Team Effectiveness Theory.
STEF is an integrated conceptual framework that synthesises existing theories to explain workplace training effectiveness as a step-by-step organisational process linking training modality, learner experiences, knowledge development, collaborative integration, and organisational outcomes. Five STEF research propositions and a future STEF-based empirical research agenda are provided to foster understanding of workplace training across different organisational, industrial, and cultural contexts.
The STEF framework makes four theoretical contributions. It reconceptualises training effectiveness as a sequential organisational process. Secondly, it integrates previously disparate theoretical perspectives. Thirdly, it positions collaborative integration as the organisational mechanism linking individual learning with organisational outcomes.
Finally, it provides a theoretically grounded foundation for future theoretical development and empirical testing, while offering practical implications for human resource development professionals and organisational leaders designing, implementing, and evaluating training interventions that contribute to employee engagement, behavioural compliance, and long-term organisational effectiveness.
Keywords: Training Effectiveness; Training Modalities; Human Resource Development; Organisational Learning; Employee Engagement; Behavioural Compliance; Conceptual Framework; Sequential Training Effectiveness Framework (STEF).

Learning and Development

1. Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organisations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organisational behaviour (pp. 315–342). Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13(11), 3–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Knowles, M. S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Gulf Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Experiential learning theory. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1215–1219). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_227 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (2021). The science of workplace instruction: Learning and development applied to work. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour, 8, 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-060109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Noe, R. A. (2020). Employee training and development (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour, 1, 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2021). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organisations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organisations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Sitzmann, T., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2018). Training engagement theory: A multilevel perspective on the effectiveness of work-related training. Journal of Management, 44(2), 732–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315574596 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study