13th Annual International Management Conference Proceeding

whether those trained start their own enterprises or not. His sentiments are supported by Harper (1983), who says
that any entrepreneurship training programme should be designed to include or at least reveal and develop
entrepreneurship in an individual. Such a training designed so as to increase entrepreneurship should be offered as part
of an integrated programmed which includes technical and management aspects and an opportunity for trainees to put
together proposals for their new business or expansion of existing ones.
Whether a training programme has contributed to improved business performance or not, should be a major concern
for training providers. As budgets are tightened and return on investment is closely scrutinized, measurement of
training effectiveness is a vehicle for establishing accountability (Fenwick & Parsons, 2000), making evaluation of
training urgent for both internal and external customers who are asking for evidence of programme effectiveness
(Fluitman, 1990 and Harper, 1983). This viewpoint is further strengthened by Louks (1987), who argues that good
training programmes should include rigorous evaluation as an important part of their on-going activities. He further
says that, just as the owner of a successful business takes action to make changes to certain departments not performing
up to standard, so too must an entrepreneurship development programme be prepared to change, add or delete a
component that is not in line with the programme objectives. This will also improve future services to clients and
ensure efficiency in programme delivery (Gibb, 1991 and Oakland, 1999). Training providers are, therefore, under
pressure of being evaluated not only on their ability to elicit positive reactions from trainees and to show evidence of
learning, but also on the extent to which they are able to improve human performance and to show a bottom-line
result, which is a positive return on investment (Holton, 1996). Even when training provides relevant knowledge,
utilization of that knowledge on the job is usually difficult and when the knowledge gained during training is not
utilized, the training is considered a waste of money, time and resources.
Without a thorough understanding of the complex relationships between training and the use of the knowledge on the
job, transfer problems will continue to be an obstacle to enterprises seeking superior performance through training.
Many studies into the transfer of training have shown that only 10% to 15% of knowledge from a training session
transfers to the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Garavaglia, 1993; Georgenson, 1982). In
addition, several efforts have been made to expand the training perspective (Tannenbaum & Yuki, 1992). Researchers
(Baldwin & Magjuka, 1991; Hicks & Klimoski, 1987; Noe & Schimitt, 1986) have recognized the importance of
several environmental characteristics and have examined variables outside the immediate training environment that may
be important to the success of the training effort.
The transfer climate here is defined as the work environment factors perceived by the trainees to encourage or
discourage their use of knowledge, skills and abilities learnt from training on the job (Broad & Newstrom, 1992;
Goldstein, 1993; Baldwin & Ford, 1988). In this regard, course information provided to trainees, accountability to the
supervisor and programme status (Baldwin & Magjuka, 1991); supervisor support (Broad, 1982; Huczynski & Lewis,
1990; Michalak, 1981; Nadler, 1971; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992, Zemke & Gunkler, 1985) and organizational
management and peer support (Cohen, 1990; Cromwell & Kolb, 2002), all affect the extent to which training is
transferred on the job. Therefore, the transfer of training must be a concern for all those who plan, teach and evaluate,
and those who support the programmes.
Whereas the role of training in the corporate context seems to receive much-needed attention, the same is not the case
in an entrepreneurial context, especially in micro and small enterprises (MSEs), which seems to have been neglected
(Paul, Ickis, & Levitsky, 1989). Efficiency of performance is not just critical for the survival of large and medium
organizations only, but MSEs, equally need to address the transfer problem in order to be able to transform themselves
into medium and larger enterprises that can compete globally. In addition, various trainee characteristics, training
design and the transfer environment factors have been identified from previous research. Most of these factors have
been identified using the corporate or medium and large businesses but not many factors have been established in
agricultural-based micro enterprises. This study is one of those attempts to explore the transfer environment factors on
enterprise performance in an agricultural context.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to determine the work environment factors that influence the transfer of training in an
agricultural MSE context and how this in turn influences enterprise performance. The study observed the socioeconomic
changes in the lives of the participants both at the individual, household and business levels. Specifically, the
94