When do firms evaluate further training measures?

Abstract

Purpose

Increased investments in employee further training have resulted in a growing interest in ensuring and improving the quality of these measures. However, little is known about the operational decision to initiate an evaluation of further training. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate under which circumstances firms decide to evaluate training measures.

Design/methodology/approach

The study analyzes the evaluation decision of firms and external suppliers, and differentiates between internal and external further trainings. Theoretically, two goals of evaluations – monitoring and feedback – and their relevance for the decision makers are considered. Using a unique linked employer–employee data set, the study employs multi-level models to analyze three influencing factors on the evaluation decision: characteristics of the further training measure itself, the employees and the employers.

Findings

The results show that evaluation decisions are not based on general organizational practices but on case-by-case cost-benefit considerations. Interestingly, firms are more likely to evaluate internal further training measures than external ones. Therefore, evaluations seem to be more frequently used as a feedback instrument than for the purpose of monitoring. For external further training measures, firms seem to trust market mechanisms as a monitoring instrument, instead of conducting an internal evaluation.

Originality/value

Although further training has become increasingly important, little is known about firms’ quality management in this respect. This paper provides a theoretical framework for the usage of evaluation procedures and analyzes firms’ strategies for ensuring quality based on a large set of variables to give new insight into the organizational decision-making processes.

Citation

Bächmann, A.-C., Abraham, M. and Huber, M. (2019), "When do firms evaluate further training measures?", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 190-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-06-2017-0146