Você está na página 1de 30

Running head: TRAINING OUTSOURCING AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

The Relationship between Training Outsourcing and Organizational Commitment


Sanghamitra Chaudhuri
The Ohio State University

Copyright 2012 Sanghamitra Chaudhuri

Abstract
The human resource practice of training outsourcing is emerging as one of the fastest -growing
segments of the broader business process outsourcing industry. In spite of its growing popularity
in both academic literature and professional practice, training outsourcing is continuously
subjected to critical reviews and on-going debates regarding the decision to outsource or not to
outsource. There exists, however, a paucity of research on training outsourcing as a human
resource development (HRD) practice on different organizational outcomes. This conceptual
paper attempted to build on and extend previous research that examined the relationship between
training and organizational commitment by focusing on outsourced training. This study also fills
an important gap in the training outsourcing literature by taking into consideration employee
perceptions and preferences towards outsourced training. The study is framed by social exchange
theory to explore possible relationships between training outsourcing and organizational
commitment.
Keywords: training outsourcing, organizational commitment, perceptions

The Relationship between Training Outsourcing and Organizational Commitment


Within the past two decades a number of environmental shifts have resulted in emerging
human resource (HR) practices in todays organizations, ones that few would have fathomed
earlier. Numerous previous studies have shown that HR practices influence organizational
performance through individual work related attitudes, such as commitment, motivation, and
satisfaction (Guest, 1997, 1999; Huselid, 1995; Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & DeLange, 2010).
Therefore, in order to remain competitive, there is a constant need to develop and implement
improved HR practices. Kooij et al. (2010) suggested that high commitment HR practices
including training and development are aimed at eliciting a strong bond of attachment to the
organization. Training is often considered as one of the most important investments in terms of
enhancing intellectual capital, which is vital for the organizations competitive sustainability
(Bulut & Culha, 2010).
Training Outsourcing: An Emerging Practice
In more recent years organizations have sought desired outcomes from new approaches to
the management and development of their human resources. One such practice drawing much
attention from HR scholars and practitioners concerns outsourcing. In simple terms, Perry (1997)
defined outsourcing as turning over to another organizations employees to carry out tasks,
previously performed by ones own employees.
Human resource management (HRM) and human resource development (HRD)
functions have also started outsourcing core and non-core activities (Greer, Youngblood, &
Gary, 1999). Outsourcing within the HR function occurred later than outsourcing of information
technology, sales and marketing, and facility operation and maintenance. The primary reason for
this later adoption is that HR was often considered too sensitive to be outsourced (Shen, 2005).

Cook (1999) defined HRM/HRD outsourcing as: having a third-party service provider
or vendor furnish, on an ongoing basis, the administration of an HRM activity that would
normally be performed in-house (p. 4). More recently, Tremblay, Patry, and Lanoie (2008)
defined human resource outsourcing as, the contracting out of a part or of all HR activities to an
outside supplier through substitution or abstention, in opposition to internal procurement in
which activities are performed by the employees of the organization (p. 685). Research has
shown that 93 percent of HR departments outsource at least some of their work (Greer et al.,
1999; Gurchiek, 2005). Indeed, training and development is one functional area of HRM in
which outsourcing is especially prevalent (Anderson, 2008; Bassi, Cheney, & Van Buren, 1997).
Training and development outsourcing has been viewed as an effective management
strategy in organizations within the current highly competitive business environment. Although
training and development outsourcing may be increasing, there is considerable variation in how
firms are utilizing this recently emerged HR practice (Csoko, 1995). While some firms have
achieved positive outcomes from outsourcing training, others report that they have miserably
failed (Baker, 1996). To that extent, scholars hold different opinions on the effects of training
outsourcing (Shih & Chiang, 2011).
Some strategic HRM scholars view training outsourcing as a value-creating activity
which may bring cost savings and operational flexibility (Cooke, Shen, & McBride, 2005; Klass,
McClendon, & Gainey, 2001). Whereas, theorists from the strategic outsourcing perspective
believe that some training activities should not be outsourced as it leads to declining innovation
(Kotabe, 1990), and reduced performance (Gilley & Rasheed, 2000). Shih and Chiang (2011) in
their recent study acknowledged that the extant literature on training outsourcing is insufficient

to guide managers on what and when to outsource. Such indecisiveness may result in ineffective
outsourced practices.
An additional area of debate in the literature relates to the impact of outsourcing on
employees. Stroh and Treehuboff (2003) suggested that outsourcing endeavors regardless if
considered successful or failed, can have a profound impact on employee morale. It may also
positively or negatively affect employee relationships with the organization. Thus, if
organizations want to utilize training outsourcing effectively, there should be an understanding
among managers of the potential impact to employee attitudes. Previous research has highlighted
that individual work related outcomes are impacted by employee perceptions of HR practices
and these may differ significantly from managerial perceptions (Guest, 1999; Huselid, 1995).
This study investigated the outcomes of training outsourcing as perceived by employees. As
such, it attempted to examine how training outsourcing relates to employee attitudes, particularly
with respect to organizational commitment. Simply stated, this study is an addition to the training
and organizational commitment literature by exploring the nature of the relationship under
conditions when training is outsourced.
Background of the Problem
Human capital theory argues that organizations should safeguard core competencies
through investments in training and development (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Echoing similar
sentiments, Rainbird (1995) asserted that competitive advantage is secured when organizations
possess skills and capabilities that are unique and arduous to replicate or imitate by competitors.
Supporting this notion, Ulrich (1996) noted that moving training and development outside the
purview of the organization could potentially interfere with this strategically important and
socially complex process. Furthermore, others have reported that outsourcing usually reduces a

companys control over how certain services are delivered (Elmuti & Kathawala, 2000). Along
similar lines, Cooke et al. (2005) contended that despite cost savings one of the potential adverse
consequences of outsourcing training is the loss of quality and reduction in employee morale.
However, Galanaki, Bourantas, and Papalexandris (2008) interviewed HR Directors who
revealed that the main reason behind the decision for outsourcing training is the perceived
quality benefits. Despite knowing that training and development activities are often linked to
strategic issues within an organization (Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997; Wright & Snell,
1998), few insights have been offered on training outsourcing as a HR practice.
Agarwala (2003) suggested that HR practices can create competitive advantage for firms
by causing certain desired employee attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. One such employee
attitude receiving increasing attention from researchers and managers is organizational
commitment. Zornitsky (1995) indicated that HR practices contributed to the economic success
of an organization through enhanced employee commitment. Porter (1990) argued that
organizations should adopt strategies that increase employee commitment if they want to remain
competitive in an era of heightened competition. Organizational commitment can have a variety
of meanings (Morris, Lydka, & OCreevy, 1993), but the most widely cited definition of
organizational commitment was given by Meyer and Allen (1991), who viewed commitment as a
psychological state that characterizes the employees relationship with the organization, and its
implications for the decision to continue membership with the organization (p. 67).
Tsui, Pearce, Porter, and Tripoli (1997) found that employee commitment is associated
with human resource practices and perceptions. Huselid (1995) noted that training activities are
associated with turnover and performance. Along similar lines, Bartlett (2001) found that
training is positively correlated with organizational commitment. While there have been studies

examining the relationship between training and organizational commitment (Bartlett, 2001), and
organizational commitment and outsourcing, where other aspects of work has been outsourced
(Benson, 2002), no empirical studies have specifically addressed the nature of the relationship
between outsourced training and the organizational commitment of employees.
Given the lack of research on this topic, it is difficult to predict the nature of the
relationship between outsourced training and organizational commitment. There could be several
ways in which employee perceptions of such outsourced training may positively or negatively
affect employee commitment. Cooke et al. (2005) noted that outsourcing training may have an
impact on employee morale. With the impact of employee morale and workplace attitudes on
desired outcomes becoming more valued, it is therefore suggested that training outsourcing is an
important factor that needs to be explored as a precursor to employee commitment. This study is
an attempt to build on and extend previous research that examined the relationship between
training and organizational commitment by focusing on increasingly prevalent practice of
training outsourcing.
Problem Statement and Method
In the academic literature, training outsourcing has received scant research attention. In
fact, most previous studies have concentrated primarily on HR outsourcing in general, and the
associated benefits and risks. The few studies on training outsourcing have tended to focus on the
relationship between firms and their vendors (Gainey & Klass, 2003; 2005). Until now, a
conspicuously missing lacuna in much of the HR and training outsourcing literature has been the
employee perspective on the impact of outsourcing on employment relations (Kessler, CoyleShapiro, & Purcell, 1999). Very little work has explored the relationship of training outsourcing
on employee outcomes, in this case, organizational commitment.

There is much rhetoric but a lack of research on the possible outcomes of training
outsourcing in terms of relationship to work place attitudes. Advocates for training outsourcing
highlight reduced costs, improved effectiveness and efficiency in training delivery, and
corresponding benefits to employee satisfaction and loyalty (Galanaki et al., 2008). Conversely,
others warn that training outsourcing undermines core values and control of HRD resulting in
reduced employee morale (Cooke et al., 2005). This lack of research on the relationship of
outsourcing training and organizational commitment is problematic in that organizations are
confronted by divergent opinions on how employees perceive the outsourcing of training
activities. Consequently, this study is the first to conceptually investigate the relationship
between outsourced training and employee commitment. It may be that if a wider range of
research on outcomes of outsourcing were available it could address the problem of firms not
knowing how outsourcing training may relate to levels of employee commitment. The
knowledge gained from this conceptual study could prove useful for firms considering
outsourcing of HR functions.
An in-depth literature review was conducted to explore the possible relationships
between aspects of outsourced training and the employee workplace attitude of organizational
commitment. A broad review of training outsourcing literature was conducted through a multidisciplinary search in the fields of human resource development, human resource management,
organizational and social psychology, information and management science, labor relations, and
health care. The data bases included EBSCO Host, ERIC, ProQuest, JSTOR, Psych Info,
PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was narrowed from the late nineties till present as
outsourcing gained momentum during this period. The search term comprised a series of
keywords which were used either independently or in combination to generate a potential list of

publications: training outsourcing, HR outsourcing, external trainers, contract trainers,


outsourcing, labor hires, and third party vendors. Articles were included if they satisfied two
criteria: 1) the article discussed about HR outsourcing and not general outsourcing 2) the article
discussed about HR or training vendors.
Theoretical Framework
Training and development has often been considered to have the potential of creating
competitive advantage for firms in terms of maximizing the value of organizations human
resources. Outsourcing training and development can bring both benefits and risks to
organizations. The benefits could include access to specialized knowledge, which may not be
available in-house. At the same time, it can potentially introduce risks for organizations as they
may become vulnerable to the opportunistic behavior of external vendors. It is uncertain as to
how the risks and benefits influence employees attitudes, and what organizations should do to
manage this tripartite relationship effectively between vendors and employees.
Oftentimes, transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1996) and the resource-based view
of the firms (Barney, 1991) are used as underlying theoretical perspectives to explain
outsourcing (e.g., Klass, 2003; Klass, Mc Clendon, & Gainey, 2001; Lepak & Snell, 1999;
Lever, 2002). These theories have often been used in prior research to explore the initial
outsourcing decision. However, in order to formulate a theoretical framework for studying the
relationship between training outsourcing and organizational commitment, social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964) and human capital theory are considered more appropriate (Becker, 1964).
A well-established stream of research rooted in social exchange theory has shown that
employees commitment to the organization is derived from their perceptions of the human
resource practices offered by employers (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-Lamastro, 1990).

Therefore, social exchange theory, and more specifically, the psychological contract theory
(which has its basis in social exchange theory) will be used as theories for the conceptual
framework for this study. The rationale for this decision is the emphasis of social exchange as
the basis for how employees perceive the social ties of an organization with an external vendor,
and the probable impact of this new relationship on employees attitudes.
This conceptual study will also explore if outsourcing of general skills training and firmspecific skills training will influence the relationship between different aspects of training
outsourcing and employee commitment. Therefore, a review of the literature on human capital
theory is also important in understanding how employees and employers could view the
outsourcing of these two distinct forms of training.
Studies of organizational commitment are often framed by social exchange theory, which
suggests that employees enter into relationships in which not only economic but also social
obligations are relevant (Blau, 1964). Blau (1964) further suggested that exchange relations are
causally related, though the direction of this causal path is not very clear. He demonstrated that
relationships have the potential to influence the type of exchange, so much so, that successful
exchanges can affect commitment levels. Many researchers have suggested that positive and
beneficial actions by employers always result in the establishment of high-quality mutual
exchange relationships, which in turn, obligates employees to reciprocate in a similar fashion
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Perceptions of the mutual obligations held by
the individual employee and the employer may be the result of the formal contracts mandated in
an employment relationship or implied by the expectations held by employees and the employer
(Herriot, Manning, & Kidd, 1997). The informal and implied expectations are referred to as the
psychological contract (Rousseau, 1990; 2001). Employees reciprocation to their employers is

contingent on met expectations, which means the more the employer fulfills obligations, the
more employees feel secure and satisfied. Conversely, changing the terms of the relationship
from the employer is likely to result in changed employee perceptions which may lead to a
breach in the perceived reciprocal relationship. Such changes have become increasingly
prevalent as organizations are adopting new forms of employment relationship, in this case
training outsourcing.
In the most general terms, training outsourcing means that an employer is hiring a thirdparty service provider or a vendor to perform the training activities that would normally be
performed in-house (Cook, 1999). It is possible that, if the training vendor provides excellent
service, the employee may see this as an investment or improvement in the relationship quality.
Applying the lens of social exchange, this training may increase their level of commitment
toward an organization. By contrast, if the vendor fails in meeting the required expectations in
regard to training, an employee may view this training as a desertion or reduction in the quality
of the relationship with his or her employer and may exhibit lower commitment.
One more aspect of social exchange that might make employees feel less committed to
organizations occurs when they perceive that the exchange relationship is no longer balanced.
Elaborating this argument further, Tsui and colleagues (1997) described that this can occur when
employers expect high returns from employees in terms of performance while their own
investment in their employees is low. This line of thinking can be extended to understanding the
probable links between the two constructs, namely training outsourcing and organizational
commitment. When employees recognize that employers are getting specialized external trainers
from outside to provide quality and relevant training, employees may perceive this to be a real
investment in their development, and consequently they may hold a high level of commitment

toward their organization. On the contrary, when employees perceive that employers are
resorting to outside vendors for all types of training, including more business process related
which are firm-specific in nature, and are not keen on monitoring the quality and relevance of
outsourced training, employees may see a mismatch, which may result in a reduced level of
commitment towards their organization. Moreover, the fact that training is outsourced may result
in increased or decreased frequency of training events which may again interfere with employee
commitment.
The type of training outsourced warrants a discussion on human capital theory.
Organizations should be cautious about outsourcing their core training activities, more
specifically, their firm-specific or specialized training activities (Gainey & Klass, 2003). Bettis,
Bradley, and Hamel (1992) contended that outsourcing core training activities may not only
reduce organizational innovations, but it could also shift knowledge to vendors and suppliers,
leading to lesser control over a firms core HRD activities. This could ultimately negatively
impact the firms long-term competitive advantage. Over-reliance on outsourcing could not only
result in declining innovation by the outsourcer, but the outsourcing firms may lose touch with
new technological breakthroughs and inventions (Kotabe, 1992; Teece, 1987). Earlier studies
have shown that innovations are positively correlated with perceived support and organizational
commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1990). Therefore, it is believed that outsourcing the training
function may dissuade employees associated with the training and human resource department to
offer innovative HRD programs which are important for an organizations growth and success.
This in turn, may have an adverse effect on employee commitment.
However, outsourcing general-skills training could have a positive impact on the
commitment of employees. Outsourcing general-skills training can increase an organizations

access to expertise and specialization usually not available in-house (Csoko, 1995). Because of
frequent changes in technology and legislation, many human resource departments are not
adequately equipped to keep abreast of rapid changes in the external environment. Thus, outside
training suppliers can ensure that employees are exposed to the latest knowledge and skills to
remain up-to-date. This in turn, may improve the employability of workers. Moreover, in order
to establish a market niche, training vendors may try to become proficient at delivering select
training programs by establishing standard operating procedures and by acquiring personnel with
specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities (Gainey et al., 2002). Hence, outsourcing generalskills training may strengthen employees commitment toward an organization.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of employee perceptions
regarding outsourced training and the possible relationship with organizational commitment.
The following questions guided the research.
1) Is the relationship between employee perceptions towards the quality of outsourced
training and organizational commitment influenced by the type of training outsourced?
2) Is the relationship between employee perceptions towards usefulness and relevance of
outsourced training and organizational commitment influenced by the type of training
outsourced?
3) Is the relationship between employees perceptions towards customization of outsourced
training and organizational commitment influenced by the type of training outsourced?
4) Is the relationship between employees perceptions towards supervisory support for
outsourced training and organizational commitment influenced by the type of training
outsourced?

The following conceptual model illustrated the key constructs and their possible
relationships in this study. It graphically demonstrated four constructs that was believed to
impact the perceptions of outsourced training. As explained in the figure, perceptions towards
quality of outsourced training, usefulness and relevance of outsourced training, customization of
outsourced training, and supervisory support towards outsourced training directly influence
organizational commitment. On the other hand the type of training outsourced whether general or
firm-specific has an indirect effect on organizational commitment. The subsequent paragraphs
briefly introduce the main components of the conceptual model and suggest a number of
hypotheses that will facilitate future research in terms of articulating relationship with
organizational commitment.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship between outsourced training and organizational
commitment.
Hypothesis Development
Previous research has examined a wide variety of aspects related to training including
availability of training, frequency of training, trainee motivation, training environment, benefits

of training, access to training, and support for training (Ahmed & Bakar, 2003; Bartlett, 2001;
Lowry et al., 2003). Since the key construct of interest for this study was outsourced training, it
was decided to focus on four aspects of training most relevant to outsourcing. Outsourced
training was divided into four operational measures including perceptions towards quality of
outsourced training, usefulness and relevance of outsourced training, customization of
outsourced training, and supervisory support towards outsourced training.
The first aspect of training examined perceptions towards the quality of outsourced
training. Galanaki et al. (2008) found that the quality of outsourced training is mostly affected by
the availability of training services in the external market. Furthermore, Shaw and Fairhurst
(1997) reported that maintaining quality of service in case of outsourced training is identified as
one of the greatest problems encountered by client firms. Furthermore, the type of training can
also influence the quality of training. The research question that this study asked was, Is the
relationship between employee perceptions towards the quality of outsourced training and
organizational commitment influenced by the type of training outsourced? The hypotheses are
stated below:
Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
the quality of outsourced training and organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
the quality of outsourced training when general-skills training are outsourced and
organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 1c: There is a negative relationship between employee perceptions towards
the quality of outsourced training when firm-specific skills training are outsourced and
organizational commitment.

The second aspect of training examined employees perceptions towards the usefulness
and relevance of outsourced training. Previous studies have suggested that employees could have
opposing views on the usefulness and relevance of outsourced training (Cooke et al, 2005). One
possible scenario could be since employees perceive that the organization is purchasing off-theshelf training from external vendors, it may not be as relevant or as useful as in-house designed
and delivered training. On the contrary, outsourced training by an external vendor may be able to
provide the latest training materials and delivery options that may exceed the perceived
usefulness and relevance of in-house training. Providing confirmation to this notion, Cooke et al.
(2005) argued that companies may benefit from outsourcing as they can have access to
specialized service providers who may have high levels of expertise. On the other hand, they
further added that practitioner journals and media reports are rife with stories of failed
outsourcing endeavors because of unfulfilled promises and unmet expectations resulting from as
a result of irrelevant training. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, perception towards
usefulness and relevance of outsourced training was an important feature to be considered. This
lead to the research question: Is the relationship between employee perceptions towards
usefulness and relevance of outsourced training and organizational commitment influenced by
the type of training outsourced? The hypotheses for this question are listed below:
Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
usefulness and relevance of outsourced training and organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
the usefulness and relevance of outsourced training when general-skills training are
outsourced and organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2c: There is a negative relationship between employee perceptions towards


the usefulness and relevance of outsourced training when firm-specific skills training are
outsourced and organizational commitment.
The third aspect of training examined employees perceptions towards customization of
outsourced training. If training is adapted and individually tailored to meet the organizations
needs and preferences, employees may have more motivation to participate. Customization of
training reflects the degree to which an external training vendor makes an investment in time and
money to deliver training in order to meet the unique needs of each individual firm (Gainey &
Klass, 2003). Gainey and Klass (2003) used the term idiosyncratic nature of training in order to
explain customization. In order to capture customization of outsourced training, the research
question asked was, Is the relationship between employees perceptions towards customization
of outsourced training and organizational commitment influenced by the type of training
outsourced? The hypotheses specific to this questions were:
Hypothesis 3a: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
customization of outsourced training and organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 3b: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
customization of outsourced training when general-skills training are outsourced and
organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 3c: There is a negative relationship between employee perceptions towards
customization of outsourced training when firm-specific skills training are outsourced
and organizational commitment.
Finally, the fourth aspect of training considered perceptions towards supervisory support
for outsourced training. Previous studies have shown supervisory support to be instrumental in

fostering the transfer of newly acquired knowledge and learned skills to workplace (Kozlowski
& Huts, 1987; Nijman, Nijhof, Wognum, & Veldkamp, 2004; Rouiller & Glodstein, 1993).
Illustrating the importance of supervisory support, Rouiller and Glodstein (1993) confirmed that
supervisory support could either impede or facilitate training transfer. Tracey and Tews (2005)
defined supervisory support as the extent to which supervisors encourage training participation
and knowledge acquisition and at the same time provide ample recognition to employees
involved in these activities. Supervisory support towards training has also been found to have
important relationships to a range of outcome variables (Noe & Wilk, 1993). Such findings
suggest that supervisor support could be an equally important feature for employee participation
in outsourced training. Therefore, the following research question was examined: Is the
relationship between employees perceptions towards supervisory support for outsourced
training and organizational commitment influenced by the type of training outsourced? The
hypotheses are listed below:
Hypothesis 4a: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
supervisory support for outsourced training and organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 4b: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
supervisory support for outsourced training when general-skills training are outsourced
and organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 4c: There is a negative relationship between employee perceptions towards
supervisory support for outsourced training when firm-specific skills training are
outsourced and organizational commitment.

Implications
This section discusses the implications of this study for research and practice in the field
of HRD. In this section, theoretical implications are discussed first followed by practical
implications for HRD professionals who are in charge of coordinating the training activities
provided by external firms. Finally, limitations and recommendations for future research are
presented.
Theoretical Implications
This study builds on the theoretical framework of social exchange, psychological
contract, and human capital theories, which is linked for the first time to study outsourced
training. A review of academic literature on training outsourcing has shown that most prior
studies have used economic theories like transaction costs economics theory and resource based
view of the firm to justify initial decisions to outsource HR or training activities. Economic
theories do not take into consideration that ultimately outsourcing impacts individual employees
and their work attitudes and performance. Therefore, to address this gap in the HR outsourcing
literature, a psychological in addition to established economic theory is proposed to explore the
relationship between employee commitment and training outsourcing. The amalgamation of
psychological and economic theories including social exchange, psychological contract, and
human capital offered a unique opportunity to advance understanding of training outsourcing.
In the wake of the debate to either make or buy that surrounds the current rationale for
training outsourcing (Greer et al., 1999), this study focuses on the outcomes of outsourced
training rather than on initial outsourcing decisions. This study pioneered a new direction in the
extant literature of training outsourcing by shifting the focus from organizations and vendors to
employees, who receive training from outsourced firms. To date, the employee voice has been

largely absent from the training outsourcing literature. This paper builds the foundation for an
empirical study with distinct focus on employee attitudes towards outsourced training and their
commitment to their organization.
This study also signaled that the conventional approach to social exchange theory may
need to be reconsidered in order to examine the tripartite relationship that exists between the
employer, employee, and training vendors. New employment forms where social exchanges are
derived from a third party, in this case an outsourced training vendor, may lead to a negative
consequence if the relationship is not handled appropriately. Consequently, this may result in
decreased level of employee commitment. On the other hand, it could result in a positive
relationship, if handled appropriately.
Practical Implications
The increased use of training outsourcing as a HR business practice, coupled with limited
knowledge of this practice on employee attitudes, speaks directly to the relevance of this study
for HRD practitioners. The findings of this study may inform the practice of HRD in showing
that training outsourcing is beneficial not only from an organizational cost perspective, but also
if its positively relates to desired employee attitudes. There is much rhetoric surrounding the
topic of training outsourcing and how it may impact quality, timeliness, cost reductions, core
competencies, innovations, and employee morale (Shih & Chiang, 2011). Despite the rhetoric,
the outsourcing of training is often inconsistent in implementation and research has not provided
practitioners with needed information. The findings of this study may provide practitioners with
the knowledge that employee perceptions of quality, usefulness and relevance, customization of
outsourced training, and supervisory support are associated with increased commitment levels.
Although a causal link cannot be established between employees perception of effective and

ineffective outsourced training practices with organizational commitment, the presence of any
significant associations will indicate that the concepts are related. With this new knowledge,
HRD practitioners should be more aware of outsourced training events and the factors which
relate to commitment. This finding may shift the onus more to HRD professionals to carefully
scrutinize training providers to ensure that outsourced training programs are designed with the
key principles in mind.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Although this study used social exchange theory, organizational justice theory (Colquitt,
2001) could provide a new direction by highlighting employee perceptions of fairness of the
entire training outsourcing process. Perceptions of procedural justice have been consistently
linked with turnover intentions, citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Moorman, Niehoff, &
Organ, 1993). Therefore, future study could incorporate organizational justice theory to further
illustrate the relationship between training outsourcing and employee commitment.
The present study used outsourcing of firm-specific skills training and general skills
training and the differing influence it may have on organizational commitment. However, one
limitation could be the blurring of the definition between firm-specific and general-skills
training. This could be especially true for the IT industry where technical skills training such as
programming languages and industry processes can be utilized outside the current firm. On the
contrary, behavioral skills and project management skills, which are more soft skills in nature,
could be regarded as specific-skills which cannot be transferred to other firms. Future research
should consider using technical and soft-skills training instead of firm-specific and general skills
training.

Conclusion
Given the increasing use and considerable debate on the costs and benefits of training
outsourcing, this study is an important addition to the existing literature. Although the extant
literature is rife with studies on the relationship between external training providers and client
organizations, there is little evidence of empirical investigations on training outsourcing from the
perspective of employee attitudes. This lack of academic scrutiny leads to a variety of
unanswered and unresolved issues including what factors should be considered when
outsourcing training. The present study is a first step to address the concern that the insiders
perspective or employee voice has been missing from the outsourcing literature (Kessler et al.,
1999; Shen, 2005).
Since training outsourcing is likely to be more pervasive in the near future (Tremblay et
al., 2008), the knowledge that outsourcing of training may be positively related to organizational
commitment if quality, relevance, usefulness, customization, and supervisory support are
carefully monitored could be an important new knowledge. Furthermore, if a positive association
is found between training outsourcing and organizational commitment, it may provide additional
data for HRD directors and managers to consider when making additional investments on
outsourced training.
As research interest in the relationship between HRD and organizational commitment
continues (Bambacas & Bordia, 2009; Bulut & Culha, 2010; Fornes, Rocco & Wollard, 2008)
additional studies that consider alternative delivery mechanisms for training are increasingly
important. This study examining the relationship between outsourced training and organizational
commitment provides a useful first step in providing data that can be used by HRD professionals
and HRD scholars to more fully understand the employee reactions to training outsourcing. It is

hoped that additional studies in this area will build on and further develop knowledge in this area
so that the rhetoric on outsourced training is increasingly supplanted by research.

References
Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative human resource practices and organizational commitment: An
empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2),
175-97.
Ahmad, K. Z., & Bakar, R. A. (2003). The association between training and organizational
commitment among white collar workers in Malaysia. International Journal of Training
and Development, 7(3), 166-185.
Alexander, S, & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
Anderson, C. (2008). Training outsourcing on the decline. Chief Learning Officer, 7(9), 62-64.
Baker, D. (1996). Are you throwing money away by outsourcing? Personnel Journal, 75(11),
105-107.
Bambacas, M., & Bordia, P. (2009). Predicting different commitment components: The relative
effects of how career development HRM practices are perceived. Journal of Management
& Organization, 15(2), 224-240.
Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organization commitment: A study
in the healthcare field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335-352.
Bassi, L. J., Cheney, S., & Van Buren, M. (1997). Training industry trends 1997. Training and
Development, 5(11), 46-59.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special
reference to education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Benson, J. (2002). Dual commitment: Contract workers in Australian manufacturing enterprises.
Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 355 -375.

Bettis, R., Bradley, S., & Hamel, G. (1992). Outsourcing and industrial decline. Academy of
Management Executive, 6(1), 7-22.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bulut, C., & Culha, O. (2010). The effects of organizational training on organizational
commitment. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(4), 309-322.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Cook, M. F. (1999). Outsourcing human resource functions: Strategies for providing enhanced
HR services at lower costs. New York: AMACOM.
Cooke, F. L., Shen, J., & McBride, A. A. (2005). Outsourcing HR as a competitive strategy? A
literature review and an assessment of implications. Human Resource Management,
44(4), 413-432.
Csoko, L. S. (1995). Rethinking human resources: A research report. The Conference Board,
Report No: 1124-95.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro,V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),
51-59.
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (2000). The effects of global outsourcing strategies on participants
attitudes and organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Manpower, 21(2),
112-128.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.

Fornes, S., Rocco, T. S., & Wollard, K. K. (2008). Workplace commitment: A conceptual model
developed from integrative review of the research. Human Resource Development
Review, 7(3), 339-357.
Gainey, T. W., & Klass, B. S. (2003). The outsourcing of training and development: Factors
impacting client satisfaction. Journal of Management, 29(2), 207-229.
Gainey, T. W., & Klass, B. S. (2005). Outsourcing relationships between firms and their training
providers: The role of trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(1), 7-25.
Gainey, T. W., Klass, B. S., & Moore, D. (2002). Outsourcing the training function: Results from
the field. Human Resource Planning, 25(1), 16-22.
Galanaki, E., Bourantas, D., & Papalexandris, N. (2008). A decision model for outsourcing
training functions: Distinguishing between generic and firm-job-specific training content.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2332-2351.
Gilley, K. M., & Rasheed, A.A (2000). Making more by doing less: An analysis of outsourcing
and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Management, 26(4), 763-790.
Greer, C. R., Youngblood, S. A., & Gray, D. A. (1999). Human resource management
outsourcing: The make or buy decision. Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 8596.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research
agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263-276.
Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management - the workers verdict. Human Resource
Management Journal, 9, 525.
Gurchiek, K. (2005). Record growth: Outsourcing of HR functions. HR Magazine, 50(6), 35-36.

Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the psychological contract.
British Journal of Management, 8, 151-62.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 635-672.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, E. S., & Schuler, S. R. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 949-969.
Kessler, I., Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Purcell, J. (1999). Outsourcing and the employee perspective.
Human Resource Management Journal, 9(2), 5-19.
Klass, B. S. (2003). Professional employer organizations and their role in small and medium
enterprises: The impact of HR outsourcing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Fall,
43-61.
Klass, B. S., Mc Clendon, J. A., & Gainey, T.W. (2001). Outsourcing HR: The impact of
organizational characteristics. Human Resource Management, 40(2), 125-138.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489-511.
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Jansen, P. G.W., Dikkers, J. S. E., De Lange, A. H. (2010). The influence of
age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job
satisfaction: A meta analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111-1136.
Kotabe, M. (1992). Global sourcing strategy: R&D, manufacturing, and marketing interfaces.
New York: Quorum.

Kozlowski, S., & Hults, B.M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and
performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Towards a theory of
human resource capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review,
24, 31-49.
Lever. S. (2002). An analysis of managerial motivations behind outsourcing practices in human
resources. Human Resource Planning, 20(2), 37-47.
Lowry, D. S., Simon, A., & Kimberely, N. (2002). Toward improved employment relations
practices of casual employees in the New South Wales registered club industry. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 53-70.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3),
209-225.
Morris, T., Lydka, H., & OCreevy, M. (1993). Can commitment be managed: A longitudinal
analysis of employee commitment and human resource policies. Human Resource
Management Journal, 3(3), 21-42.
Nijman, D.J., Nijhof, W.J., Wognum, A.A., & Veldkamp, B.P. (2004). Differential effects of
supervisor support on transfer of training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30,
529-549.

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.
Perry, C. (1997). Outsourcing and union power. Journal of Labor Research, 18(4), 521-534.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillian.
Rainbird, H. (1995). The changing role of the training function: A test for integration of human
resources and business strategy. Human Resource Management Journal, 5, 72-90.
Rouiller, J.Z., & Goldstein, I.L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate
and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377-390.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employers obligations: A
study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise, and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
511-541.
Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (1997). Outsourcing the HR function-personal threat or valuable
opportunity? Strategic Change, 6, 459-468.
Shen, J. (2005). Human resource outsourcing: 1990-2004. Journal of Organizational
Transformation and Social Change, 2(3), 275-295.
Shih, H., & Chiang, Y. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of outsourcing, recruiting, and
training activities, and the prospectors strategys moderating effect. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 163-180.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of
affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-780.

Stroh, L. K., & Treehuboff, D. (2003). Outsourcing HR functions: When and when not to go
outside. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(1), 19-28.
Teece, D. (1987). Capturing value from technological innovations: Integration, strategic
partnering, and licensing decisions. In B.Guile & H. Brooks (Eds.). Technology and
global industry (pp. 65-95). Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
Tracey, J.B., & Tews, M.J. (2005). Construct validity of a general training climate scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353-374.
Tremblay, M., Patry, M., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Human resources outsourcing in Canadian
organizations: An empirical analysis of the role of organizational characteristics,
transaction costs and risks. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
19(4), 683-715.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the
employee organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? The
Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089-1121.
Ulrich, D. (1996). Human resource champions. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility
in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756772.
Zornitsky, J. J. (1995). Making effective HRM a hard business issue. Compensation and Benefits
Management, 2(1), 16-24.

Você também pode gostar