Transferring More than Learned in Training: Employees' and managers' (over)generalization of skills

Across two studies, we examine the extent to which individuals accurately report their learning and transfer in a training context. In Study 1, we examine self (subordinate) and supervisory estimations of training transfer, 6–12 weeks after employees (subordinates) attended training in an organization in the United States. Using ratings of skills unrelated to training programs attended, we compared managers' and employees' ratings to determine the extent to which respondents report skill overgeneralization. Individual differences and skill visibility were examined as predictors of training transfer overgeneralization. Subordinates, particularly those high on conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability, are more likely to report transfer in areas not covered in training. Conversely, when managers rate skills, which are used in their subordinates' day‐to‐day activities (more observable, visible, or transparent skills), training transfer estimates are more accurate. In Study 2, we determine that conscientiousness is the main factor driving raters' overgeneralization (for self‐ratings), and we further demonstrate that other personality dimensions – insecurity and perfectionism – accentuate the influence of conscientiousness on trainees' overgeneralization. From a practical standpoint, employers need to be aware of potential for biases in training transfer ratings when evaluating training transfer, particularly for employees with specific personality characteristics and for those who are in jobs with low skill visibility.