Search results

In previous studies, outcomes of leadership training have varied, with some studies suggesting large effects and others small. Although the transfer of training literature suggests a number of factors that influence training outcomes, this knowledge has seldom been used when evaluating the outcomes of leadership training. The purpose of the present study is therefore to examine how factors related to transfer of training influence outcomes of leadership training.

In the present research, follower-rated outcomes of a leadership training program in Denmark (N = 298) was examined from a transfer of training perspective.

Using Baldwin and Ford's transfer of training model as a framework, analyses revealed that leaders' utility reactions (i.e. perception of usefulness) and learning were linked to transfer of training. In addition, leaders' perceptions of transfer were associated with post-intervention follower-rated transformational leadership and collective self-efficacy.

Making sure that leaders find the training useful for their everyday activities (i.e. positive utility reactions) and that they have time to learn the training content is important to enable transfer and for leaders to use trained skills back at work.

The findings indicate the importance of understanding how leaders' perception of training content influences leadership training outcomes and that these perceptions need to be a part of the evaluation of leadership training. In addition, the findings suggest that factors predicting transfer of leadership training differ from other types of training.

To review the literature and identify research gaps in the role and influence boards of directors of companies have in occupational health and safety (OHS).

This was done in a scoping review built on a structured search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, CCInfoWeb, EconLit, Web of Science, CINAHL and gray literature. Citations and reference lists were tracked. Inclusion criteria were publication in English. Exclusion criteria were studies covering companies using subcontractors to arrange OHS, or with <250 employees.

Forty-nine studies were included. The majority contained empirical data (n = 28; 57%), some were entirely normative (n = 16; 33%), and a few contained normative claims far beyond empirical data (n = 5; 10%). Empirical studies gave no insight into the scope of impact of board activities on OHS, and no studies assess the causal mechanisms by which board activities influence OHS outcomes. Most studies focused on both health and safety (n = 20; 41%) or only safety (n = 15; 31%). Context might explain the focus on safety rather than health, but is not clearly elucidated by the studies. Several studies are describing leadership behavior, although not framed as such. A narrative summary is presented to facilitate future research.

Future research should include: (1) which board activities influence OHS, (2) how board activities influence OHS, (3) the influence of context and (4) the leadership role of boards of directors.

This study identifies a total lack of research on the basic mechanics of the relationship between boards and OHS.