Impact of Organizational Training Environment on Training Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Training Motivation

Impact of Organizational Training Environment on Training Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Training Motivation

Mahanaz Hoque¹., Dr. Faruq Ahmed²

¹PhD Researcher, Department of Management, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

²Professor, Department of Management, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.805149

Received: 09 May 2024; Accepted: 24 May 2024; Published: 21 June 2024

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, emphasizing the Mediating Role of Training Motivation. Grounded in established theories of training effectiveness and motivation, the research adopts a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach to examine the interplay among these critical factors within organizational contexts. Drawing on data collected from 420 respondents on the basis of simple random sampling from Dhaka, Chattogram, Rajshashi and Khulna, the study reveals a positive and significant relationship between the organizational training environment and training effectiveness. Moreover, the identification of training motivation as a significant mediator in this relationship. The results emphasize the significance of creating a favorable training environment, which has a direct influence on training outcomes and also promotes employee motivation. This, in turn, enhances the overall efficacy of training programs. These observations have important practical consequences for businesses aiming to enhance their training programs. The paper proposes potential avenues for future research to enhance our comprehension of the intricate dynamics inside organization training environments.

Key Words: Organization Training Environment, Training Effectiveness, Training Motivation, Mediating Role, Structural Equation Modeling.

INTRODUCTION

Organizations understand the critical role that employee training and development play in cultivating a knowledgeable and flexible staff in the ever-changing environment of the modern workplace. The success of a company is heavily dependent on the efficacy of its training programs, as firms fight to maintain their competitive edge. This study explores the complex interplay of training motivation, organizational training environment, and overall training efficacy. A competent and flexible staff is essential for organizational success in the fast-paced commercial environment of today. Employee training is becoming a strategic need rather than a luxury.

The design of training programs, the accessibility of resources, the quality of instructional materials, and the general atmosphere that promotes growth and learning are just a few of the many components that make up the corporate training environment. Scholars have consistently emphasised the importance of these variables in determining the results of training endeavours (Noe, 2013; Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Although there is ample evidence of the direct influence of training environment on efficacy (Salas & Tannenbaum, 1973), little research has been done on the underlying processes. This research explores how training motivation functions as a mediator in this connection. For the purpose of fostering an environment that is favorable to the successful acquisition of skills and transfer of information, a strong training environment is essential (Noe, 2017).

Prior studies (e.g., Noe & Ford, 2016) have shown the beneficial impact of a training environment on a range of learning outcomes. Knowledge sharing and active involvement are encouraged in supportive contexts that are marked by open communication, teamwork, and constructive criticism (Kong et al., 2015). In addition to improving engagement, technological tools and contemporary training techniques accommodate a variety of learning preferences (Burke & Hutchins, 2007). Employees are more likely to be intrinsically driven to learn and use their newly learned abilities when they believe that their training is important and relevant to their present and future responsibilities (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and the Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which provide frameworks for comprehending the cognitive and motivational processes behind learning in organizational contexts, are two pertinent theories that this research leans upon to guide our investigation. But these components by themselves are insufficient. The link that connects the training environment and its efficacy is motivation. By offering chances for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, a supportive environment promotes intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Increased engagement, retention of information, and skill transfer back to the workplace are all fueled by this incentive (Noe & Ford, 2016).

Although there is an increasing amount of study on the efficacy of training and its connection to the training environment, the influence of motivation as a mediator has not been well examined. Current study mostly focuses on the immediate influence of environmental variables or individual motivators. This research aims to examine the relationship between the training environment and motivation, in order to get a more detailed knowledge of how businesses may maximize their training investments and foster a culture of ongoing learning and growth.

This study investigate to enhance the current understanding by examining the intricate relationships among the organizational training environment, training motivation, and training efficacy, therefore bridging the existing gap. Through clarifying the intermediate function of training motivation, objective is to provide valuable knowledge that may guide organizational practices and policies in order to improve the effectiveness of training programs.

This study will explore the following key questions:

1. How do different aspects of the training environment (e.g., supervisor support, technological resources, training methods) influence training motivation?
2. Does training motivation mediate the relationship between training environment and training effectiveness (e.g., skill acquisition, knowledge retention, on-the-job application)?

LITERATURE REVIEW

An examination of the relationship among organizational training environment, training effectiveness and training motivation are the critical aspect of the literature review.

• Organizational Training Environment and Training Effectiveness

Businesses have increasingly recognized the importance of organizational training programs in improving staff performance and overall efficiency. The purpose of this literature review is to investigate the correlation between the organizational training environment and the efficacy of training programs. Goldstein and Ford (2002) state that the efficacy of training is often assessed by evaluating the degree to which newly learned skills and information are used in the workplace, leading to enhanced job performance.

The total efficiency of training programs is influenced by many aspects present in the organizational training environment. These determinants include organizational culture (Baldwin & Ford, 1988), leadership support (Colquitt et al., 2000), and resource availability (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).

The research conducted by Schneider (1990) emphasizes the influence of organizational culture on the formation of the learning environment inside a corporation. A correlation exists between a pleasant and supportive culture and elevated levels of employee participation in training activities, resulting in enhanced training efficacy. Colquitt et al. (2000) highlight the significance of leadership support in establishing a learning-friendly atmosphere. Leaders who actively endorse and engage in training activities have a good impact on employee attitudes and, as a result, enhance the efficacy of training. Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) contend that the effectiveness of training programs is heavily influenced by the availability of resources, such as time, financial assistance, and technology. Organizations that provide sufficient resources to training are more likely to achieve favorable results in terms of effectiveness.

When workers have a sense of ease in expressing ideas and obtaining valuable feedback, their likelihood of actively engaging in training programs and participating in knowledge sharing is increased (Kong et al., 2015). The learning experience is improved and accommodates different learning styles via the provision of current technology, training materials, and suitable learning places (Burke & Hutchins, 2007). Employees’ perception of the training content’s relevance to their present and future jobs enhances their intrinsic motivation to learn and utilize the newly gained abilities in their work (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

H1: There is a significant positive effect of organizational training environment on training effectiveness.

• Organizational Training Environment and Training Motivation

The effectiveness of training programs in the modern workplace is intricately tied to the workers’ incentive to actively participate in educational endeavors. This literature review examines the complex correlation between the corporate training environment and workers’ willingness to engage in training activities.

Many researches constantly find evidence of a strong and meaningful correlation between the training environment and training motivation. Training motivation is a multifaceted concept that encompasses the eagerness and aspiration of people to actively participate in learning and growth prospects (Noe, 1986). The goal-setting theory proposed by Locke and Latham (2002) posits that motivation is influenced by the establishment of precise and demanding objectives, a principle that may be applied to the realm of training.

The organizational culture is crucial in influencing workers’ desire to engage in training. Schein (2010) contends that a culture that is supportive and focused on learning promotes a favorable disposition towards training, establishing an atmosphere in which individuals are motivated to actively pursue ongoing improvement.

The leadership strategies used inside a business have a substantial influence on employee motivation (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leaders who effectively convey the significance of training, establish clear requirements for participation, and provide constructive reinforcement contribute to a motivated atmosphere that fosters workers’ commitment to their own growth and improvement. Ensuring the presence of resources, such as time, materials, and technology, is essential for promoting employee engagement (Holton, 1996). Organizations that allocate resources to provide accessible and relevant training materials contribute to a stimulating atmosphere that promotes active participation in learning endeavors. Customizing training methods to suit individual requirements and preferences amplifies inherent motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). An organizational training environment that facilitates individualized learning experiences enhances workers’ feeling of autonomy and competence, which are crucial elements in maintaining motivation. Recognition and prizes for training successes enhance extrinsic motivation (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). When workers feel that their training efforts are recognized and appreciated, they are more inclined to actively engage in future learning activities. According to Gagné and Deci (2005), social support in the corporate training environment plays a crucial role in encouraging workers. The presence of peer cooperation, mentoring, and a strong feeling of community cultivates a motivating environment that inspires people to see training as a collaborative endeavor aimed at achieving organizational success.

H2: There is a significant positive effect of organizational training environment on training motivation.

• Training Motivation and Training Effectiveness

Ensuring the effectiveness of training programs is a crucial consideration for firms aiming to optimize the return on investment in staff development. This research review examines the complex relationship between training motivation and training effectiveness, acknowledging the crucial role that motivation plays in influencing the results of learning programs.

The role of motivation in determining learning performance is generally acknowledged (Keller, 1983). Individuals with a strong motivation to learn are more inclined to dedicate effort and time to obtaining new information and abilities, hence enhancing the efficacy of their training. According to Colquitt et al. (2000), motivation plays a crucial role in determining the efficiency of training. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsic motivation, which is fueled by personal interest and the natural enjoyment gained from learning, is a strong indicator of how successful training will be. Individuals that are genuinely driven exhibit greater levels of engagement and recall of training information. According to Katzell and Thompson (1990), extrinsic motivation, which arises from external incentives or punishments, may also have a favorable impact on short-term training results. Although internal drive is important, extrinsic motivation, which is based on external incentives and recognition, also has an impact on training results (Colquitt et al., 2000). Employees who are driven by external incentives may demonstrate heightened effort and performance throughout training, hence improving overall effectiveness. According to Dweck (1986), those who have a learning goal orientation, meaning they see training as a chance to gain new skills and information, are more likely to have good results from the training. Individuals that possess a learning goal orientation, which is defined as a strong desire to enhance their competence, often exhibit higher levels of motivation to engage in training activities (Dweck, 1986). This goal orientation enhances training efficacy by promoting a focus on acquiring and enhancing skills. Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (1977) suggests that persons who possess a strong conviction in their capacity to succeed are more motivated and inclined to get favorable training results.

The transfer of training to the workplace is a crucial indicator of efficacy (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Highly motivated individuals are more inclined to use their learned information and abilities in practical situations, thus closing the disparity between training exercises and actual work performance.

Holton and Baldwin (2003) suggest that motivation acts as an intermediary between the design of training programs and their efficacy. Training that is well-designed takes into account motivating elements, which may increase engagement and ultimately result in better results in terms of acquiring and applying skills.

H3: There is a momentous optimistic impact of training motivation on training effectiveness.

• The Mediating Role of Training Motivation in the Relationship between Organizational Training Environment and Training Effectiveness

Understanding the relationship between the corporate training environment, training motivation, and training effectiveness is crucial as firms spend in building successful training programs. This literature review examines how training motivation acts as a mediator between the corporate training environment and the overall effectiveness of training programs.

The organizational training environment comprises several elements, such as organizational culture, leadership support, and resource availability. These aspects together impact the overall efficacy of training programs (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Colquitt et al., 2000; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). The incentive to train plays a vital role in connecting the corporate training environment with the efficacy of the training. Employees that are motivated are more inclined to actively participate in training, resulting in improved learning and application of skills (Noe, 1986; Colquitt et al., 2000).

Studies indicate that the company culture has a substantial impact on the level of employee desire to engage in training programs. An affirmative and encouraging culture cultivates a motivated atmosphere, prompting workers to see training as worthwhile and pertinent (Schein, 2010). The favorable view acts as a mediator between company culture and training efficacy. The presence of effective leadership, which includes a strong endorsement of training programs, directly influences the level of motivation among employees (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leadership support fosters an atmosphere in which workers are encouraged to engage in training activities, serving as a mediator in the connection between leadership support and the success of training. The presence of resources, such as time, materials, and technology, adds to a motivated environment that improves the efficacy of training (Holton, 1996). The provision of essential resources enhances workers’ incentive to participate in training, hence moderating the correlation between resource availability and training results. Customizing training regimens to suit individual requirements and preferences has a good impact on motivation, as stated by Deci and Ryan in 1985. The training environment inside an organization, which promotes individualization, functions as a mediator, therefore increasing motivation and consequently influencing the efficacy of training. Recognition and awards for training successes act as intermediaries between the corporate training environment and training motivation. When workers feel that their contributions are recognized and compensated, their inclination to engage in training is heightened, which in turn impacts the overall success of the training (Katzell & Thompson, 1990).

H4: Training Motivation has a mediating role in the relationship between organizational training environment and training effectiveness.

The conceptual framework for the effect of organization training environment on training effectiveness with the mediating role of training motivation is based on the following key constructs:

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

• Research Approach

This research utilizes a quantitative methodology to evaluate the influence of a good organizational training environment, which includes support, resources, and practice opportunities, on the efficacy of training. Additionally, it investigates training motivation as a possible mediator, drawing on the works of Baldwin and Ford (1988) and Ryan and Deci (2000). We will quantify these variables and examine their interconnections via statistical methodologies such as regression and mediation analysis.

• Research Population

The target population for this research will be employees who have recently participated in training programs within their organizations. This ensures that the participants get firsthand experience in both the training setting and the desired results (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).

• Sampling Technique

The study will use a simple random sampling method to guarantee a sample of personnel that is both representative and varied inside the organizational setting. Simple random selection ensures that every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected, depending on important factors such as job responsibilities, departments, and hierarchical levels. Participants are then randomly chosen from each subgroup (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

• Sample Size

The sample size for this research will be determined based on statistical power and precision principles to guarantee strong and dependable results. Due to the intricate nature of the study model which includes several variables, it is advisable to have a sample size that is adequately big for the selected statistical analyses, such as Structural Equation Modeling (Kline, 2015). To ensure a varied and inclusive sample, it is recommended to have a sample size of at least 384 people, as suggested by Cochran (1977). This aligns with the criteria for research that use Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), as stated by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). At last, we have gathered data from 420 participants.

DATA COLLECTION

• Primary Data: The primary data for this research will be collected through structured surveys administered from the selected participants.
  • Survey: The survey questions will be created using validated scales and measurements from previous research, guaranteeing reliability and validity (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Participants will use a Likert scale to indicate their replies to items on the training atmosphere, motivation, and perceived efficacy. The use of a quantitative method in this study is in line with the research aims, since it enables the use of statistical techniques, such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), to examine the proposed associations (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
  • Questionnaire Framing: This survey examines the interaction between the training environment within an organization (including support, resources, and climate), the motivation for training (both intrinsic and extrinsic), and the success of the training (measured by knowledge acquisition and skill transfer). The questionnaire is designed to ask straightforward and impartial questions and uses suitable answer scales. To assure the reliability of the data for analysis, it is important to guarantee anonymity and conduct pilot testing (Babbie, 2010; Dillman, 2007).
• Secondary Data: Examining preexisting company documents, assessments of training, and surveys measuring employee satisfaction may provide significant information about the training environment of the firm and its perceived efficacy (Noe, 2008).
• Data Validation: The research will use a multi-step method for data validation to guarantee accuracy and dependability. Initially, internal consistency checks will be performed to detect any missing values, outliers, and discrepancies within both the main and secondary data sets. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the scales used will be evaluated by calculating reliability measures such as Cronbach’s alpha for important domains such as the training environment and motivation. Furthermore, the study will use measures of construct validity, specifically convergent and discriminant validity, to guarantee that the scales correctly depict the desired components (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

• Data Analysis

This research utilizes a multi-stage methodology for analyzing the data. Descriptive statistics will first provide a summary of important variables using SPSS 25. Following that, regression analysis will be used to assess the suggested hypotheses, investigating the direct and indirect connections between the training environment, training motivation, and training effectiveness using SmartPLS4. Mediation analysis, using methodologies such as Preacher & Hayes’ (2004) bootstrapping methodology, will further investigate the function of training motivation in mediating the connection between training environment and efficacy (Hair et al., 2009).

• Measure

The measurement scales were directly developed from the reviewed study. The evaluations were scored on a scale that ranged from 1 (indicating significant disagreement) to 5 (indicating strong agreement). The researcher assessed the training environment of the company using 16 items as the independent variable. These items are derived from the research conducted by Burke and Baldwin (1999) and Tharenou (2001). The efficacy of the training was assessed using a 12-item scale. Alan Chapman devised a condensed version of Kirkpatrick’s scale. The measurement of training motivation was conducted using a 14-item scale created by Phyllis Tharenou (2001), which was derived from a 17-item scale published by Noe and Wilk (1993).

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

• Assessment of Measurement Model

Evaluating the measurement model in this research will include confirming the dependability and accuracy of the scales used to gauge the organizational training environment, training motivation, and training efficacy. The task will include computing internal consistency metrics, such as Cronbach’s alpha, for each scale, while also assuring satisfactory item-to-total correlations. The assessment of convergent and discriminant validity will be conducted to verify that the scales accurately measure their intended constructs and effectively differentiate themselves from other constructs. Factor analysis may uncover latent patterns within the constructs, which may result in the improvement of the model. To accurately evaluate the correlations between these elements and make correct conclusions regarding the influence of the training environment on effectiveness via the mediating function of motivation, it is important to provide trustworthy and valid measures (Hair et al., 2019; Kline, 2023).

• Constructs’ Reliability and Convergent Validity

The measurement model’s reliability and convergent validity in the context of the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, are proven by the factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha values, composite reliability scores (rho_a and rho_c), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) reported. The factor loadings for the Organization Training Environment (OTE), Training Effectiveness (TE), and Training Motivation (TM) constructs all above the suggested threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010), indicating robust connections between the underlying constructs and their observable indicators. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s alpha values and composite reliability scores for each construct above the acceptable threshold of 0.70, indicating a strong level of internal consistency and reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The AVE values, which quantify the extent to which the concept captures variation compared to the variance caused by measurement error, above the suggested threshold of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), so demonstrating convergent validity. In summary, these data indicate that the measurement model is dependable and has convergent validity.

Table 1: Constructs’ Reliability and Convergent Validity

• Discriminant Validity

The presence of discriminant validity is apparent in the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation. Discriminant validity evaluates the degree to which the dimensions in a measuring model are separate and different from each other. The Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) values fall below the threshold of 0.90, indicating that the latent components, Organization Training Environment (OTE), Training Effectiveness (TE), and Training Motivation (TM), are adequately separate from one another (Henseler et al., 2015). In addition, the Fornell-Larcker criteria establishes that the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct is higher than the correlations between that construct and other constructs. This finding provides additional evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The findings validate that the measurement model successfully differentiates across the underlying constructs, ensuring that each variable represents distinct variation in the model.

Table 2: Discriminant Validity

• Model Fit

The fit indices for the model assessing the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, suggest that there is a reasonable match between the saturated model and the estimated model. The SRMR value of 0.057 indicates a tight match, since values below 0.08 are regarded acceptable according to Hu and Bentler (1999). The discrepancy indices (d_ULS and d_G) both have a value of 0.889, indicating a negligible difference between the estimated model and the saturated model. The Chi-square value of 1195.948, while statistically significant, is a recognized drawback in situations involving large samples and sophisticated models. Therefore, it should be regarded with caution, as stated by Bentler and Bonett (1980). The Normed Fit Index (NFI) value of 0.842 is considered satisfactory according to Bentler and Bonett’s study in 1980. Overall, these fit indices suggest that the proposed model accurately describes the observed data, confirming its suitability in understanding the connections between the organizational training environment, training motivation, and training efficacy.

 Table 3: Model Fit

Figure 02: Assessment of Measurement Model 

• Assessment of Structural Model

The evaluation of the structural model in the research investigating the Influence of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, demonstrates a very suitable model. A structural model was used to investigate the hypothesis and the interconnections among the variables (Hair et al., 1998). The PLS-SEM structural model was used to examine the correlation between independent and dependent variables (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014).

• Coefficient of Determination (R²)

This model has a significant level of explanatory ability as shown by the Coefficient of Determination (R²) values (Hair et al., 2019). The coefficient of determination (R²) for Training Effectiveness (TE) is 0.658 (adjusted 0.657), which means that 65.8% of the variability in TE can be accounted for by the model, taking into account both the direct and indirect influences of Organization Training Environment (OTE) via Training Motivation (TM). Moreover, the coefficient of determination (R²) for TM, which is 0.617 (adjusted 0.616), indicates that 61.7% of the variability in TM can be accounted for by the model. This emphasizes the significant impact of OTE on motivation. These results indicate that the model successfully captures a substantial amount of the connections between these concepts, offering useful insights for improving training programs to boost both motivation and effectiveness.

Table 4: Result of R Square (Prediction Power)

• Effect Size (f²)

Cohen’s f², which measures the effect size, offers valuable information about the practical importance of predictors in the model that investigates the impact of the organization’s training environment on training effectiveness, while also considering the mediating role of training motivation. The Training Effectiveness (TE) is somewhat influenced by the Organization Training Environment (OTE), with an impact size of 0.339, as classified by Cohen (1988). This suggests that the training environment inside an organization has a significant impact on the variation in the efficacy of training. The impact size for Organization Training Environment (OTE) in the instance of Training Motivation (TM) is 1.612, which indicates a significant and substantial influence. The significant effect size emphasizes the enormous influence of the training environment inside a company on inspiring workers to participate in training activities. These impact sizes not only demonstrate statistical significance, but also emphasize the practical relevance of the organizational training environment in affecting both training efficacy and motivation within the examined context.

Table 5: Result of

• Predictive Relevance (Q²)

The Q² values for the models of Organization Training Environment (OTE), Training Effectiveness (TE), and Training Motivation (TM) in the study examining the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, represent the amount of variance in each latent variable that can be accurately predicted by the model. The Q² value of 0.476 for the Organization Training Environment (OTE) indicates that the model has strong predictive significance. This means that the organizational training environment plays a major role in explaining the variation within itself. The Q² values of 0.412 and 0.421 for Training Effectiveness (TE) and Training Motivation (TM) correspondingly indicate that the models accurately anticipate a substantial amount of the variability in training results and motivation. The Q² values highlight the models’ prediction effectiveness and confirm their capacity to capture and explain the observed variability in the corresponding latent components.

Table 6: Result of Predictive Relevance (Q²)

• Multicolinearity (VIF)

The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for the models of Organization Training Environment (OTE), Training Effectiveness (TE), and Training Motivation (TM) in the study investigating the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, suggest the existence of multicollinearity. The VIF values of 2.612 for both OTE predicting TE and OTE predicting TM indicate a considerable level of multicollinearity. According to the general guideline, caution should be used when the VIF surpasses 5 (Hair et al., 2010). These values suggest that the predictor variables are associated, but not to an extent that significantly undermines the interpretability of the coefficients. Although it is preferable to have a lower VIF, the existing results indicate that the collinearity is within acceptable thresholds, enabling dependable interpretation of the coefficients in the models.

Table7: Result of Multicollinearity (VIF)

• Assessment of Path Coefficient

The evaluation of route coefficients in the research investigating the Influence of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, demonstrates considerable and substantial connections among the main factors. The regression correlation between Organization Training Environment (OTE) and Training Effectiveness (TE) is 0.55 (β = 0.55), suggesting a statistically significant and favorable influence of the organizational training environment on training effectiveness (H1). The discovery is substantiated by a significant T statistic of 9.143 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating that the association is unlikely to be attributed to random chance. The path coefficient from OTE to Training Motivation (TM) is 0.786 (β = 0.786), demonstrating a substantial positive impact of the organizational training environment on training motivation (H2). This is corroborated by a very significant T statistic of 26.814 and a p-value of 0.000. The path coefficient from Training Motivation (TM) to Training Effectiveness (TE) is 0.304 (β = 0.304). This indicates a positive and significant mediating impact (H3), which is confirmed by a T statistic of 5.161 and a p-value of 0.000. The findings confirm the expected correlations and highlight the important role of training motivation as a mediator in the influence of organizational training settings on training effectiveness.

Table 8: Outcome of Structure Model

• Mediating Effect

The study investigating the relationship between Organization Training Environment (OTE) and Training Effectiveness (TE), with the inclusion of Training Motivation (TM) as a mediator, demonstrates a noteworthy indirect impact of OTE on TE via TM. The path coefficient for the indirect impact (H4) is 0.239 (β = 0.239), which demonstrates a statistically significant positive mediation effect. The conclusion is substantiated by a T statistic of 4.955 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating that the mediation effect is unlikely to be attributed to random chance. This research highlights the importance of Training Motivation as a crucial mediator in the connection between the corporate training environment and training effectiveness. These findings enhance our knowledge of how corporate training environments influence employee training outcomes, highlighting the need of cultivating motivating variables to maximize the success of training programs.

Table 09: Outcome of Mediation Effect

Figure 3: Assessment of Structural Model

DISCUSSION

The current study’s results on the influence of the organizational training environment on training effectiveness, with the mediating role of training motivation, are consistent with and build upon prior studies in this area. There are some important correlations that can be made between the present research and the literature that already exists:

The discovery of a direct correlation between the training environment inside an organization and the efficiency of training is consistent with the established principles found in existing research. The significance of a supportive training environment in improving training results has been underscored in studies conducted by Baldwin and Ford (1988) and Salas et al. (2012). The current research enhances these fundamental notions within a modern environment.

Prior research supports the notion that training motivation plays a crucial role in mediating the link between the organizational training environment and training efficacy. Noe’s (1986) influential study highlighted the significance of trainees’ motivation as a crucial element that affects the results of training. This work expands on the current knowledge by demonstrating the precise mediation route within the setting of organizational training.

The utilization of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to investigate the intricate connections between the organizational training environment, training motivation, and training efficiency is in accordance with the suggestions put out by Hair et al. (2010). Structural equation modeling (SEM) offers a strong statistical framework to evaluate and confirm the suggested model, enhancing the methodological rigor of the study.

THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION & PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This research examines the intricate relationship between the training environment inside an organization, the desire to participate in training, and the efficiency of the training. It provides both theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical Contributions

The research examining the influence of the organizational training environment on training effectiveness, while considering the mediating role of training motivation, provides valuable theoretical insights to the current body of literature. Firstly, it enhances our comprehension of the immediate influence of the organizational training environment on the efficiency of training, revealing the unique processes by which organizational settings affect employee growth. Furthermore, the research enhances theoretical frameworks about employee motivation in the context of workplace training by presenting and confirming the mediating function of training motivation. This offers a more intricate viewpoint on how the training environment inside an organization impacts the results of training. Furthermore, the inclusion of sophisticated statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling and mediation analysis, enhances the methodological integrity of the field, providing a strong foundation for future research efforts in the area of organizational training and development.

Practical Implications

The results of this research have important practical implications for businesses seeking to improve the efficacy of their training programs. Organizations may intentionally create and execute training environments that provide the essential resources, support, and opportunities for ongoing learning. This encompasses the allocation of resources towards state-of-the-art training tools, fostering a conducive learning environment, and providing a wide range of skill enhancement prospects. Furthermore, it is crucial for firms to acknowledge the fundamental importance of training motivation and implement strategies to enhance workers’ innate drive towards engaging in training activities. This may include synchronizing training programs with individual career objectives, highlighting the pragmatic significance of learned competencies, and recognizing and incentivizing workers for their training efforts. Furthermore, recognizing the mediating function of training motivation emphasizes the need of not alone concentrating on the training material and setting, but also on fostering a driven workforce.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the research on the Impact of Organization Training Environment on Training Effectiveness, with the Mediating Role of Training Motivation, has offered useful insights into the intricate dynamics that affect employee growth within organizational settings. The results validate the assumptions, confirming that a favorable and adequately supported corporate training atmosphere greatly improves both the desire to undergo training and, as a result, the efficacy of the training. The path coefficients illustrate the direct influence of the organizational training environment on training efficacy, together with the substantial mediating function of training motivation in this association. The suggested model is further supported by the impact sizes, predictive relevance (Q²), and coefficients of determination (R²), which emphasize its practical and explanatory importance.

These findings have significant implications for how organizations should approach training. They emphasize the need of creating a supportive training environment to improve both employee engagement and the overall success of training programs. This research enhances the current body of knowledge by providing a thorough comprehension of the interaction among organizational characteristics, motivational components, and training results. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize possible constraints, such as the study’s cross-sectional design and the dependence on self-reported information.

Future research might investigate longitudinal designs to capture the evolving nature of these associations over time and take into account other contextual factors that may impact the reported results. Notwithstanding these issues, the present research offers practical insights for corporate leaders and training professionals aiming to enhance training programs by strategically addressing both the training environment and motivating elements.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Based on the knowledge acquired from this study, future research may further investigate the complex correlation between the organizational training environment, training motivation, and training efficacy. This can be done by researching potential areas of interest, such as:

1. Conducting a thorough analysis of the training environment to identify the specific factors (such as support, resources, technology, and leadership style) that have the greatest impact on motivation and effectiveness. This will enable the implementation of focused interventions. Examining the influence of human and organizational characteristics, including as personality traits and organizational culture, on the connection between the environment, motivation, and effectiveness. Adapting strategies to suit unique circumstances.
2. Investigating the interplay between various forms of motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation) in the training setting and their impact on learning outcomes. Analyzing the evolution of motivation during and after training, and devising tactics to maintain motivation for long-lasting effects on learning.
3. Going beyond conventional measurements of knowledge and skill acquisition to include other dimensions of training efficacy, such as job performance, employee engagement, and organizational creativity. Examining the potential influence of external circumstances, such as economic conditions and industry developments, on the efficacy of training programs and the need for adaptation.
4. Monitoring fluctuations in the environment, motivation, and efficacy over a period of time to get more profound understanding of the dynamic interconnections in action. Integrating quantitative data analysis with qualitative interviews or observations to enhance comprehension of the real-life experiences and viewpoints of trainees.

By undertaking these prospective study avenues, we may acquire a more intricate comprehension of the intricate elements that impact the efficacy of training, finally allowing firms to design and execute programs that really empower their personnel and foster organizational triumph.

REFERENCES

1. Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Cengage Learning.
2. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105.
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
5. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
7. Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Technology and training: Developing the 21st century workforce. Sage Publications.
8. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
14. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). Wiley.
15. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
17. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
18. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
19. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
20. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
22. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
23. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27(2), 139-152.
24. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
25. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
26. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
27. Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21.
28. Holton, E. F., & Baldwin, T. T. (2003). Using a four-level training evaluation and ROI framework to assess the value of an organizational change effort: A case study. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132-151.
29. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
30. Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-153.
31. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-429). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
33. Kong, F., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, J. (2015). Social cognitive theory-based workplace interventions: A systematic review. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 238-267.
34. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
35. Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123-146.
36. Noe, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2016). Employee training and development. Routledge.
37. Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 736-749.
38. Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee Training and Development (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
39. Noe, R. A. (2017). Training and development: The need for multi-level, multi-disciplinary research. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 216-221.
40. Noe, R. A., & Ford, J. K. (2016). The current state of training and development research. In R. A. Noe & J. R. B. Halvorsen (Eds.), Employee training and development (7th ed., pp. 3-28). McGraw-Hill.
41. Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 291-302.
42. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
43. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
44. Salas, E., & Tannenbaum, R. (1973). The influence of individual and group factors on performance in simulated aircraft environments. Human Factors, 15(1), 45-52.
45. Salas, E., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1973). Control theory applications to the design of training for complex tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(5), 413-421.
46. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101.
47. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
48. Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. Jossey-Bass.
49. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 399-441.
50. Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 599-621.