MIXED METHODS STUDY

How Leaders Can Get the Most

Out of Formal Training: The
Significance of Feedback-Seeking
and Reflection as Informal
Learning Behaviors

Jennifer L. Sparr, Kristin Knipfer, Friederike Willems

An important area for human resource development (HRD) research

is the interrelated nature of different types of workplace learning. In our
research, we studied feedback-seeking and reflection as informal, proactive
learning behaviors in the transfer of formal training in the context of
global leadership development programs. Thus, we add to our knowledge
about how learners can transfer and extend formal training into informal
workplace learning. In a partially mixed-method field investigation,
we first explored triggers and characteristics, as well as the outcomes of
feedback-seeking and reflection. Second, we investigated their predictive
and mutually reinforcing effect on transfer of training. Integrated results
from a qualitative interview study (Study 1, n = 15) and a quantitative
survey study (Study 2, n = 60, comprising n = 15 participants from Study 1
and n = 45 additional participants) support the hypotheses that feedback-
seeking and reflection are both relevant facilitators of transfer of training.
In addition, Study 2 reveals that transfer of training was highest when
both feedback-seeking and reflection were high, supporting our interaction
hypothesis. This research extends the understanding of the importance of
informal learning activities following formal training. Based on our results,
we advocate that learners in their posttraining phase be engaged in both
feedback-seeking and reflection to enhance their transfer of training.
Further implications for human resource development research and
practice are discussed.

Key Words: feedback-seeking, leadership development, reflection, transfer

of training
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 28, no. 1, Spring 2017 © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library ([Link]) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21263 29
30 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

Research in the field of human resource development (HRD) aims at facilitat-

ing continuous learning and enabling employees to face the challenges of their
daily work (Watkins & Marsick, 2014). In addition to learning in the course
of formal training, much of what is learned happens informally through
‘learning by doing’ (Conlon, 2004). Although formal training and informal
learning are considered to be fundamentally different (Eraut, 2004; Jacobs
& Park, 2009), their combination and integration holds potential for HRD
(Ellström, 2001). Consequently, there is a call for more research on “the inter-
related nature of all workplace learning” (Watkins & Marsick, 2014, p. 12).
In our research, we answer this call by studying informal, proactive learning
behaviors (i.e., learning behaviors initiated by the learners themselves outside
of the formal training) in transfer of training, which is defined as “the extent
to which the learning that results from a training experience transfers to the
job and leads to meaningful changes in work performance” (Blume, Ford,
Baldwin, & Huang, 2010, p. 1067).
Transfer of training is a natural intersection between formal learning
in training and informal learning at the workplace: Whereas concepts and
explicit knowledge are taught in formal training, transfer of training happens
in and through work practice (Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell, 2003). To get the most
out of formal training, participants need to be proactive learners who initi-
ate and guide their learning when back at work. Therefore, they influence
the effectiveness of transfer of training to a large extent themselves (Nesbit,
2012). Proactive learners create transfer experiences in adapting and applying
training content to the specific demands of their position and the dynamic
environments in their organization. They evaluate their transfer experiences
and redirect their transfer efforts if necessary. This informal learning process is
particularly important when training contents include complex skills such as
leadership (Laker & Powell, 2011; Yelon & Ford, 1999).
Following the concept of learning agility, defined as “a person’s ability
and willingness to learn from experience and apply the lessons of experience
to improve future performance” (DeRue, Ashford, & Myers, 2012, p. 259),
we identified two crucial informal, proactive learning behaviors in transfer of
training: First, feedback-seeking helps learners to evaluate their performance in a
transfer experience and to specify further potential for improvement of transfer
of training (see Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). It extends self-evaluative
thinking to external sources such as coworkers and allows for a quasi-objective
assessment of the effectiveness of transfer of training efforts (Atwater & Wald-
man, 1998). Second, reflection is a central mechanism of learning at work as
it enables sense making from work experience to guide future behavior (e.g.,
Knipfer, Kump, Wessel, & Cress, 2013). Reflection on a specific transfer expe-
rience should allow for a critical reevaluation of one’s own performance and
guide future transfer efforts.1 In the following, we argue that feedback-seeking
and reflection with regard to the transfer experience are two important infor-
mal learning behaviors that operate independently from each other. At the

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 31

same time, the effect of feedback-seeking on transfer of training will benefit

from reflection, and the effect of reflection will benefit from feedback-seeking.
Given the early stage of research on the significance of feedback-seeking
and reflection in transfer of training, we used a partially mixed-method design
(see Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009) to enhance our understanding in this area.
First, we conducted qualitative interviews with alumni of a formal leadership
development program for a better understanding of the triggers, characteris-
tics, and outcomes of both informal learning behaviors and their significance
for the learner’s transfer of training. Our research was guided by the following
questions: Do learners apply feedback-seeking and reflection on transfer expe-
riences? What are the triggers, the characteristics, and the outcomes of both
behaviors? In a quantitative field study, we further examined the separate and
joint effects of feedback-seeking and reflection on transfer of training. Then,
we integrated the findings of both studies and derived conclusions on infor-
mal learning in transfer of training. We chose this design to use the strengths
of qualitative and quantitative research and to extend our insights gained from
these two studies (Bazeley, 2012). Both studies were conducted within the
context of formal training programs, which are an integral part of leadership
development in organizations (Day, 2001; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
Our research makes two main contributions to the literature: First, we
study proactive learning behaviors at the intersection of formal and informal
workplace learning; this allows making recommendations on how to shape
future HRD initiatives to enhance transfer of training. Second, investigating
the relationship of feedback-seeking and reflection contributes to the litera-
ture on transfer of training as well as to the literature on feedback-seeking,
which suffers from inconsistent findings concerning the relationship between
feedback-seeking and learning (see Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett,
2015). Furthermore, it contributes to the literature on reflection, which has
focused on challenges and barriers in reflective processes (e.g., Marsick &
Watkins, 2001). Our research is of high interest to HRD practitioners because
it is the basis for targeted interventions such as prompts to seek feedback and
guided reflection to facilitate transfer of training.

Theoretical Background
In the following, we frame transfer of training as a natural intersection
between formal and informal learning before we develop our hypotheses for
feedback-seeking, reflection, and the interaction between these two behaviors
with regard to transfer of training.
Transfer of Training as Intersection Between Formal and Informal
Learning
Workplace learning has been defined as “the multiple ways through which
employees learn in organizations” (Jacobs & Park, 2009, p. 134). Two forms

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

32 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

of learning are important for understanding how HRD can foster the learning
capacity of the workforce (Watkins & Marsik, 2014): First, formal learning is
understood as “structured learning that takes place ‘off the job’ and outside the
working environment, typically in classroom-based formal educational settings”
(Manuti, Pastore, Scardigno, Giancaspro, & Morciano, 2015, p. 4); second,
informal learning is defined as learning that is not deliberately planned and takes
place outside a formal learning setting (Manuti et al., 2015). According to the
conceptual framework of workplace learning offered by Jacobs and Park (2009),
we focus our research on the intersection between formal training and informal
learning. Specifically, we investigate the role of two informal learning behaviors,
feedback-seeking and reflection, in transfer of training to the workplace.
Feedback-Seeking and Transfer of Training
Feedback is an important individual resource (Ashford, 1986), as it indicates
how others evaluate one’s own behavior (Kuchinke, 2000); it helps to identify
effective behaviors and to detect ineffective behaviors (Ashford & Cummings,
1985). Not surprisingly, the availability of feedback has a high impact on the
degree to which people learn from experience (DeRue & Wellman, 2009). With
regard to formal training, feedback-seeking has been shown to increase learn-
ing (Yanagizawa, 2008) as well as transfer of training (Madzar, 1995). However,
“many workers today find themselves in a feedback vacuum” (Ashford, Blatt, &
VandeWalle, 2003, p. 774), and they have to proactively engage in feedback-
seeking, that is, in asking for feedback (feedback inquiry) and in observing the
environment for feedback signals (feedback monitoring; Anseel et al., 2015).
Since the application of newly gained knowledge and skills involves uncer-
tainty and requires adaptation of training contents, feedback-seeking is a valid
strategy to gather information on one’s own development. Whenever learners
cannot directly or precisely evaluate the results of their transfer efforts, they
might want to seek further evaluative information from coworkers. Feedback-
seeking is thus a valuable means to reduce uncertainty and collect information
necessary for further improvement of transfer of training. We assume that feed-
back-seeking is an effective learning behavior for enhancing transfer of training:

HYPOTHESIS 1: There is a positive relationship between feedback-seeking on a

transfer experience and transfer of training.

Earlier studies investigating the relationship between feedback-seeking and

learning found a positive relationship or no relationship (e.g., Ashford & DeRue,
2012; Crommelinck & Anseel, 2013). A recent meta-analysis showed that feed-
back-seeking is only moderately related to performance (Anseel et al., 2015) as
are feedback interventions (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). There was also a large vari-
ance in effects, calling for research on moderators. In the following, we will argue
that reflection on transfer experiences is a facilitator of transfer of training and that
feedback-seeking and reflection reinforce each other’s effect on transfer of training.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 33

Reflection and Transfer of Training

Reflection is the intermediate that allows people to generate meaning from an
experience (Boud & Walker, 1990; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; DeRue, Nahr-
gang, Hollenbeck, & Workman, 2012). It enables learners to generate lessons
learned from past experiences that guide future behavior (Boud, Keogh, &
Walker, 1985; Knipfer et al., 2013). Specifically in the context of leadership
development, the significance of reflection has been discussed in the past
(Nesbit, 2012). Because leadership experiences are ambiguous (DeRue et al.,
2012), they put high demands on the learner’s capacity to make meaning
of them. Transfer of training often requires adapting to specific or dynamic
circumstances. This requires the constant evaluation of transfer success
(or failure), as well as the continuous improvement. Hence, Nesbit (2012)
argued that it is essential for leaders to engage in reflection to improve trans-
fer of training and the development of new skills. The outcomes of reflec-
tion include behavioral intentions and new insights, both of which may result
in the enhancement of transfer of training later on. We therefore argue that
reflection is effective to enhance transfer of training through deliberate and
purposeful examination of one’s own transfer efforts and transfer experience:

HYPOTHESIS 2: There is a positive relationship between reflection on a transfer expe-

rience and transfer of training.

Interactive Effect of Feedback-Seeking and Reflection on Transfer of

Training
We have argued so far that both feedback-seeking and reflection have positive
effects on transfer of training. Further, we hypothesize that feedback-seeking
is most effective when it is combined with reflecting on the transfer experi-
ence and vice versa for two reasons: on the one hand, feedback-seeking is
particularly effective if learners reflect on their transfer experiences and the
received feedback. Nesbit (2012) argued that the self-initiated obtainment of
feedback information and the reflection on this feedback together with one’s
own evaluation of a transfer experience fosters personal development. Simi-
larly, Ashford and DeRue (2012) described feedback-seeking as part of creat-
ing learning opportunities in leader development and reflection as a means
to capture the lessons of those learning experiences. Through reflection on
obtained feedback, learners become aware of their strengths and weaknesses
and can take targeted action to improve their performance. Moreover, reflec-
tion supports the learner in dealing with unexpected or negative feedback:
Baumeister, Vohs, De Wall, and Zhang (2007) pointed out that “the heat of
emotion may cause irrational behaviors” (p. 174); reflection includes attend-
ing to emotions to regulate the affective response (Boud & Walker, 1990).
When considering how to act on the feedback received, reflection facilitates
the deliberate and rational examination of one’s own transfer efforts to make

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

34 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

a purposeful decision. We conclude that reflection is necessary to unlock the

potential of feedback-seeking, and the effect of feedback-seeking on transfer
of training is stronger if the individual engages in reflection on the transfer
experience.
On the other hand, reflection on a transfer experience is particularly
effective for transfer of training if learners engage in feedback-seeking.
Feedback-seeking can help to overcome blind spots and misconceptions about
one’s own behavior by obtaining information from external sources (Marsick
& Watkins, 2001). Hence, feedback-seeking complements the learners’ own
construal of a transfer experience and extends the basis for reflection. In fact,
reflection without feedback did not have a positive effect on task performance,
and feedback helps to “direct where the reflection should be directed” (Anseel
et al., 2009, p. 33). Thus, the effect of reflection on transfer of training should
be stronger if learners also engage in feedback-seeking about their transfer
experience. To summarize, we hypothesize that feedback-seeking and reflec-
tion interact so that when learners show both behaviors, they will benefit the
most with regard to transfer of training.

HYPOTHESIS 3: Transfer of training is highest when learners engage in both feedback-

seeking and reflection on a transfer experience compared to when they use only
feedback-seeking or reflection or none of these behaviors.

Research Design and Context

To explore triggers, characteristics, and outcomes of feedback-seeking and
reflection for transfer of training and to test our hypothesis on the interplay
of feedback-seeking and reflection, we conducted a partially mixed-method
field investigation including two studies. In Study 1, we conducted qualita-
tive interviews with alumni of a corporate leadership training program, which
allowed us to capture the nuances and particular meanings of both learn-
ing behaviors from the learner’s perspective (theory elaboration). In Study 2,
we tested the hypotheses that feedback-seeking and reflection are positively
related to transfer of training and that they reinforce each other’s effect based
on a quantitative survey with alumni of three comparable corporate leader-
ship and management development programs (theory testing). After pre-
senting the results of both studies separately, we integrate the findings in the
light of earlier research on transfer of training and draw conclusions for both
research and practice. This procedure is suitable to complement and extend
insights from different data types (Bazeley, 2012). Our research design can
be described as a partially mixed sequential equal status design because two
methods are used to address different research questions of equal importance
and are ‘mixed’ at the interpretation stage to draw conclusions based on the
results of both studies (see Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 35

In both studies we assessed transfer of training from the learner’s per-

spective, thus capturing changes resulting from the leadership and manage-
ment development programs by means of self-reports. This seems appropriate
because most formal trainings target changes at the individual level (Black &
Earnest, 2009), and therefore learners are the first to recognize their learning
while changes in leadership effectiveness may occur only long term (Day, 2001).
We conducted both studies in a multinational company in the consumer
goods industry. The company’s headquarters is located in Germany, and it
has approximately 40,000 employees in about 60 countries worldwide. This
company offers corporate leadership and management development programs
in-house. The leadership development programs focus on developing leader-
ship skills (e.g., communication skills, conflict resolution). The management
development programs focus on business knowledge, for example, strategy,
marketing, and finance. The leadership development programs are conducted
in cooperation with external training specialists; the management programs are
offered in cooperation with a business school. All programs start with a kick-
off meeting and continue with two- or three-day-long modules, accompanied
by coaching, assignments, and group projects. The programs are tailored to
three different leadership levels, namely, leaders, who take on formal leader-
ship responsibility for the first time (participants of Study 1); middle manag-
ers, who already have leadership experience; and higher-level managers, who
have leadership responsibility for subordinated leadership levels (participants
of all three programs were included in Study 2). All participants are nomi-
nated by their supervisors. Compared to leadership development programs of
comparable companies, the programs offered in our cooperating company are
extensive; they usually last for at least six months. This research setting—lead-
ership and management development programs in a multinational, globally
acting company—is a typical learning setting for leaders (Day, 2001; Salas &
Cannon-Bowers, 2001). In our research, we had the opportunity to study quite
extensive leadership and management development programs directed at three
different leadership levels in the organizations. Thus, we expect our results to
generalize well to different settings of leadership and management training.

Study 1: Interview Study to Shed Light on Feedback-

Seeking and Reflection in the Posttraining Phase

Method
In the following method section we introduce our sample and the interview
procedure, as well as data collection and data analysis strategy for our inter-
view study (Study 1).
Sample and Procedure. We interviewed alumni of a leadership devel-
opment program that is regularly conducted in the United States/Canada,
Europe, and Asia. This program is targeted at newly appointed leaders with

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

36 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

very little or no leadership experience and aims at preparing participants for

their leadership role. To recruit participants for our research, 63 alumni of
this program were invited via e-mail to participate in a personal interview
on a voluntary basis. They were told that the purpose of the interview was
to evaluate the training program and to gain insights into their transfer of
training experiences. Thirty participants volunteered to take part in our inter-
view study. We considered approximately 20% of the program participants as
an adequate sample size to ensure representativeness and selected 15 inter-
viewees based on a quota of five participants from each the United States/
Canada, Asia, and Europe (23.80%). We also kept the gender-quota equal to
the proportion of men and women in the program. The majority of the study
participants were male (86.67%). Sixty percent of the sample had between 1
and 5 years of experience in a supervisory position (less than 1 year: 13.33%;
5 to 10 years: 26.67%). Participants had functional or disciplinary leadership
responsibility for at least 1 employee and up to 60 employees. The majority
of the participants were in the age group between 36 and 45 years (66.66%)
with the rest between 25 and 35 years (33.33%). The time lag between the
end of the last training session and the interview ranged between one and four
months (M = 2.27, SD = 1.16, Mode = 2.00).
Data Collection. An interviewer trained in communication skills and
research methods conducted the interviews after receiving extensive interview
training. Due to the international nature of the sample, the interviews were con-
ducted in English. We used a videoconferencing tool that allowed for audiotap-
ing. Interview length ranged between 25 and 60 minutes (M = 41.80, SD = 11.30).
The interviews were based on a semistructured interview guideline with
five main parts: in the first part (Introduction), the interviewer gave a standard-
ized introduction to explain the purpose of the interview, to assure confidenti-
ality, and to request permission to audiotape the interview. In the second part
(Transfer Experience), participants were asked to describe a specific transfer
experience in which they had tried to apply what they had learned in the train-
ing. The interviewer encouraged them to describe what the situation was about,
what they had done, what goals they had and what results they had expected,
and to what extent their expectations were met. Participants were encouraged
to describe any change in their thinking, feeling, or acting following this situa-
tion (Transfer Outcomes). In the third part (Reflection), the interviewer asked
the participants to describe in detail their thoughts during or after this experi-
ence to gain insights into their reflective activities. They were asked to describe
the content of their thoughts, temporal focus (past, present, future), develop-
ment of thoughts, and time spent thinking about this situation. The participants
were encouraged to indicate whether the reflection on the transfer experience
had changed their feelings, cognitions, or intentions to act differently in the
future. In cases in which participants reported that they had not reflected on
the transfer experience, the interviewer asked them to describe what prevented
them from reflection. In the fourth part (Feedback-Seeking), participants

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 37

were asked to report if they had engaged in feedback-seeking and, if yes, from
whom. They were asked to describe the feedback they had received with regard
to its valence, content, and perceived helpfulness to further enhance transfer
of training. If participants reported that they had not engaged in feedback-
seeking, they were asked whether they had received feedback without asking
for it directly. In the final part (General Evaluation and Feedback), interviewees
were asked to give general feedback on the training on behalf of the company.
Data Analysis
Coding for Feedback-Seeking and Reflection. First, interviews were
transcribed verbatim for data analysis. Two of the authors, who did not con-
duct the interviews, read the interview transcripts independently and coded
the statements in which the interview partners reported feedback-seeking or
reflection with regard to a specific transfer experience. Both researchers dis-
cussed the assignment of codes until agreement was reached. This very first
step allowed us to structure the analytic process, which centered around the
feedback-seeking and reflection behaviors as follows.
Inductive Data Analysis. To develop an understanding of the triggers,
characteristics, and outcomes of feedback-seeking and reflection, we ap-
plied inductive data analysis techniques (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990), ranging from descriptive summaries to the identification of
major themes and the development of conclusions by means of comparative
analysis, synthesis, and interpretation across the interviews (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). In an iterative fashion, we analyzed the interview data by traveling
back and forth between the data and an emerging structure of theoretical
arguments (Locke, 2001), guided by these research questions: Did learners
apply feedback-seeking and reflection? What were the triggers, characteris-
tics, and outcomes of feedback-seeking and reflection?

Step 1: Identification of major themes (interview specific). In the first step

of inductive analysis, two researchers (not the interviewer) reread the
interview transcripts and compiled descriptive summaries in order to
document emerging major themes. Major themes were created from actual
phrases or meaningful content in specific text segments of the interview
transcripts. Examples of prominent major themes included ‘feedback
increased confidence’ and ‘reflection was triggered by critical events.’ This
step of analysis was repeated in multiple rounds of feedback and discussion
among the authors.

Step 2: Grouping major themes (across interviews). In the second step, both
researchers compared the major themes to identify similarities and
differences across all interviews and to detect conceptual patterns (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967). For example, we grouped themes together as ‘triggers for
feedback-seeking’, ‘characteristics of reflection’, or ‘outcomes of feedback-
seeking’. We then compared and contrasted data within these theme

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

38 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

clusters to identify the triggers, characteristics, and outcomes of feedback-

seeking and reflection, as well as the underlying processes. For example,
we found that feedback-seeking was rather motivated by a need to confirm
one’s own transfer strategy, whereas reflection was often triggered by
(perceived) failure of the transfer effort; both behaviors were reported to
result in lessons learned from a specific transfer experience. This step of
analysis involved several rounds of individual work and joint discussion
of how major themes were grouped together until agreement was reached.
Whenever necessary, we revisited the original data set.

Results
In the following, we present and summarize the results of our inductive data
analysis for feedback-seeking and reflection.
Feedback-Seeking and Transfer of Training: Unsystematic Feedback-
Seeking Is Rewarded by Positive Feedback, Resulting in a Confidence Boost
Seven (46.67%) participants reported feedback-seeking with regard to the
transfer experience that they had described to the interviewer. Additionally,
four participants reported that they had received feedback without asking for
it. Three participants had asked their supervisors, two had asked their direct
reports, one had asked colleagues at the same level, and another participant
had sought feedback from a person outside the workplace. For example, Man-
ager 8 asked a direct report for feedback: “We have a weekly meeting and
I have asked, you know, what am I doing wrong, what am I doing right”.
Manager 11 shared a situation in which he2 started a new project and tried to
apply communication techniques from the training. He talked to his supervi-
sor: “I asked her what her opinion about the way I defined the next steps and
measures is and how she is more or less satisfied with the situation and how
she feels about it, and during that discussion on communication, she more or
less indirectly gave me feedback.” These examples showed that those manag-
ers who had sought feedback about a transfer experience did this in a rather
unsystematic way, leaving room for their sources to provide general feedback
on their performance in the transfer situation.
We also explored the characteristics of the received feedback in order to
understand the effect of feedback-seeking on transfer of training experienced
by the participants. We found that the participants experienced the feedback as
motivating and encouraging; it increased their willingness to continue with their
transfer efforts. For example, Manager 4 applied knowledge from the training to
deal with a follower’s resistance to change. This knowledge gave the interviewee
a better understanding of the follower’s perspective. He asked his supervisor
for feedback on this situation. The feedback was very helpful for him to further
expand his transfer efforts to other people involved in the change process. In
addition, the feedback encouraged him to adopt further content from the train-
ing program. “It ([the feedback)] motivated me to look at other employees and

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 39

make sure that I have an understanding of what their profile was. … When
I have appraisals coming up, I can take that into consideration and structure
meetings prior to the appraisals based on what information I have about them.”
Reflection and Transfer of Training: Negative Events Trigger Reflection,
Resulting in Lessons Learned to Guide Future Transfer of Training. Twelve
(80.00%) participants reported that they had reflected during or after the
described transfer experience. The interviews further suggest that reflection was
often triggered by negative events. The case of Manager 4 illustrates this: “Actu-
ally, in my head, I kind of played back as I was going along some of the things
that worked and didn’t work and some of the pitfalls along the way and tried
to avoid those.” The reflection on this experience allowed him to modify his
strategy, apply the modified strategy, and evaluate the follower’s reaction: “I …
went over, you know, everything and how it worked out. That way I know in the
future what worked for that person and how to apply it again.” Manager 10 had
even written down the lessons gained from reflection: “I record what I have done
well and what I have not done well; that is the file I maintain for myself, and also
I would put in what I have not done correctly and how I can improve in future.”
Reflection helped him to take corrective actions and to improve his transfer
efforts: “If a situation happened and I need to, I feel good or bad about it, I then
take some minutes maybe, 5 to 10 minutes before I sleep to think about it, and
if I think there is a need for me to improve the situation.” Manager 3 said that
a lack of time prevented him from reflection: “I would need more time to look
through the past work.” Manager 12 used feedback-seeking as a replacement for
reflection: “The thought that I should analyze this did not come to my mind.
This was neither a planned activity nor a project like ‘First step I do this, second
step I do that.’ The feedback on doing one-on-one, that was just an unplanned
thing. I asked, ‘How are you doing after this team meeting?’” Feedback-seeking
served as a ‘quick check’ to find out if things were going in the right direction
without thinking very thoroughly about a specific transfer experience.
Discussion
Study 1 aimed at theory elaboration on the role of feedback-seeking and
reflection for transfer of training. Both feedback-seeking and reflection were
reported by our interviewees—reflection more frequently than feedback-
seeking. Concerning the outcomes of both informal learning behaviors, we
found that both feedback-seeking and reflection enable learners to generate
lessons learned from their transfer experience and to guide their future trans-
fer efforts. Our results further suggest that feedback-seeking and reflection
fulfill different purposes: Reflection on a transfer experience focused mostly
on the potential for further improvement, thereby pointing to new transfer
strategies; feedback-seeking was applied in a rather confirmatory manner to
encourage a specific transfer strategy. Feedback-seeking also appears to be
used as a shortcut replacement of reflection when there were time constraints
or conflicting demands; it allowed learners to get an impression of whether

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

40 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

they were on the right learning track or not. Although these interpretations
are only preliminary due to the small sample stemming from only one organi-
zation, they provide valuable implications for future research.
To explore the interrelationship of reflection and feedback-seeking, we
checked if both behaviors were applied at the same time or if one behavior
triggered the other. In the interviews, however, these two behaviors were not
connected in any way. The small sample may have decreased the probability
to detect a coincidence of both behaviors. To test our hypotheses with regard
to the single and joint effects of feedback-seeking and reflection on transfer of
training, we used a quantitative approach in our second study, thereby draw-
ing on a larger sample.

Study 2: Online Survey to Explore Interactive Effects

of Feedback-Seeking and Reflection

Method
In the following method section, we introduce the sample and procedure used
in our survey study (Study 2), as well as the measures we used to assess
feedback-seeking, reflection and transfer of training.
Sample and Procedure. The sample consisted of the 15 participants from
Study 1 and 45 additional participants recruited via e-mail. The participants
of Study 1 were invited to complete a quantitative survey after their interview,
and 15 interviewees agreed to participate (100%). Additionally, the head of
the global learning department invited 77 alumni of two further leadership
and management development programs via e-mail. Participants were offered
a report about key results of the evaluation. They were informed that their
data are handled confidentially and that anonymity is ensured. Participants
were asked to complete the questionnaire within 10 days, and they received
one reminder. Forty-five alumni agreed to participate (58.44%).
The final sample included 60 alumni from three training programs
and with different levels of leadership experience (overall response rate was
65.22%). They had finished the training one to six months earlier (M = 3.17,
SD = 1.72). Most of the participants were 36 to 45 years old (60.00%; 25 to 35
years: 23.33%; 46 to 55 years: 13.33%; 56 to 65 years: 3.33%). The major-
ity were male (80.00%), and most of them (48.33 %) had between 1 and 5
years of experience in a supervisory position (less than 1 year: 11.67%; 6 to
10 years: 18.33%; 11 to 15 years: 10.00%; 16 to 20 years: 5.00%; over 20
years: 6.67%). The participants were located mostly in Europe (41.67%), Asia
(26.67%), and United States/Canada (23.33%; n/a 8.33%).
Measures. The online survey was conducted in English and was intro-
duced as an evaluation tool with a total of 56 questions.
Feedback-Seeking. Feedback-seeking was measured with a composite
score of eight items. All items were measured on a Likert scale ranging from

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 41

1 = never to 7 = very often. Seven items were adapted from the Information
Seeking Scale (Morrison, 1993). Following the instruction “Please think about
the weeks at work after the last module of the leadership program. To deter-
mine how well you did in applying the leadership program content to your
work, how often did you do any of the following?,” respondents rated the
frequency of feedback-seeking with regard to various sources, for example,
“ask your direct supervisor for feedback,” “ask a colleague for feedback,” or
“ask someone outside your firm for feedback.” Additionally, one item adapted
from the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI; Holton, Bates, & Ruona,
2000) completed the assessment of feedback-seeking (“In the time period
since the last module, I actively sought for feedback on how well I applied
what I learned in the leadership program”). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure
was α = .82 in our sample.
Reflection. Reflection was measured by a four-item subscale of the Criti-
cal Reflection Scale (Kember et al., 2000). All items were rated on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Participants were
instructed to refer to reflection on a transfer experience, that is, on their effort
to transfer contents from the formal training to their daily job (“The follow-
ing statements refer to the application of what you have learned during the
leadership program”). Sample items of the reflection scale are “I often reflect
on my actions to see whether I could have improved on what I did” and “I
often reappraise my experience so I can learn from it and improve for my next
performance.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was α = .70 in our sample.
Transfer of Training. Theory considers transfer of training as “mean-
ingful changes in work performance” that can be attributed to the training
(Blume et al., 2010, p. 1067). To capture these changes, we gathered par-
ticipants’ perceptions of positive changes as a consequence of the leadership
training using three items that were adapted from the LTSI subscale Positive
Personal Outcomes (Holton et al., 2000).3 The items were ‘I believe the lead-
ership program helps me to do my current job better’; ‘The quality of my work
has improved by the implementation of the leadership program’s content’; and
‘Through the application of the leadership training content, I am more confi-
dent in my ability to use new skills at work.’ All items were rated on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha
for this measure was α = .79 in our sample.
Control Variables. As control variables, we assessed in which of the
three different leadership training programs participants had been enrolled
and whether respondents had participated in the interview study. We cre-
ated two dummy variables for the three different leadership programs: leader-
ship training 1 (1 = LT1, 0 = other training program) and leadership training
2 (1 = LT2, 0 = other training program). In addition, we included a dummy
variable for participation in Study 1 (1) and no participation in Study 1 (0).
Demographics. We assessed age, gender, and tenure in a supervisory
position.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

42 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

Results
Because participation in Study 1 could have biased the survey responses (e.g.,
Vitale, Armenakis, & Field, 2008), we included participation in the interview
as a control variable in our statistical analyses and repeated our analyses with
the 45 participants who had not participated in Study 1 (statistics are available
on request). Because our findings were stable in the smaller sample (n = 45),
we report the results based on the full sample (n = 60).
Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and correlations of study variables
are shown in Table 1. We hypothesized that feedback-seeking and reflection
are positively related to transfer of training (Hypotheses 1 and 2). We further
assumed that both have joint effects on transfer of training (Hypothesis 3).
Hierarchical linear regression analysis with z-standardized scores was applied
in order to test these hypotheses. The results, complemented with 95% confi-
dence intervals based on bootstrapping with n = 1,000 samples, are displayed
in Table 2. Model 1 included the control variables leadership training and par-
ticipation in Study 1. The model was significant, F(3, 55) = 4.83, p < .01, and
explained 21% of the variance. Participation in the interview predicted trans-
fer of training showing that interviewees reported higher transfer of training
compared to other participants. In Model 2, we entered feedback-seeking and
reflection. Model 2 was significant, F(5, 53) = 6.83, p < .001, and explained
additional 18% of variance, ΔF(2, 53) = 8.00, p < .01. Finally, in Model 3, we
entered the interaction term feedback-seeking*reflection. Model 3 was sig-
nificant, F(6, 52) = 9.32, p < .001, and explained additional 13% of variance,
ΔF(1, 52) = 13.62, p < .01. Model 3 explained 52% of the variance of trans-
fer of training in total. Both feedback-seeking and reflection as well as the
interaction term significantly and positively predicted transfer of training. To
investigate the interaction effect further, we plotted it using the procedure
proposed by Dawson ([Link] When
both feedback-seeking and reflection were high, transfer of training scores
were highest (see Figure 1). In addition to the visual analysis of the interac-
tion, we conducted simple slope analyses. At a high value of reflection (M + 1
SD), the simple slope was significant (slope = 0.45, t = 4.75, p < .001), while at
a low value (M – 1 SD), the simple slope was not significant (slope = − 0.03,
t = −0.35, ns). We conclude that our hypotheses were supported.
Discussion
Study 2 was based on data from a quantitative survey. We found support
for our hypotheses that feedback-seeking and reflection are both positively
related to transfer of training and that transfer of training is highest if both
behaviors are shown to a great extent. However, the simple slope analysis
suggests that feedback-seeking did not have an effect on transfer of training
when reflection was very low (and vice versa). Thus, both behaviors seem to

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Feedback-seeking and reflection

1. Leadership Training 1 0.62 0.49 —

2. Leadership Training 2 0.20 0.41 –.66** —
3. Interview Participation 0.25 0.44 .46** –.30* —
4. Reflection 4.21 0.51 –.19 .18 .23^ (.70)
5. Feedback-seeking 3.66 1.06 .06 –.03 .06 .24^ (.82)
6. Transfer of Training 3.88 0.58 .19 .06 .39** .38** .40** (.79)
Note. Cronbach’s alpha on the diagonal in parentheses; Leadership Training 1, Leadership Training 2, and Interview Participation are dummy variables. N = 60;
^p < .10; *p < .05; **p < 0.01.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

43
 Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis
44

95%-Bootstrap 95%-Bootstrap
Model Variable B SE t Lower Interval Upper Interval
1 (Constant) 3.50 0.17 20.89*** 2.97 3.97
Leadership Training 1 0.26 0.20 1.28 –.25 .83
Leadership Training 2 0.44 0.23 2.00^ –.08 1.00
Interview Participation 0.51 0.18 2.87** .17 .85
2
R = .21, F(3, 55) = 4.83, p < .01
2 (Constant) 3.50 0.15 23.30*** 3.09 3.85
Leadership Training 1 0.34 0.19 1.80 –.13 .81
Leadership Training 2 0.41 0.20 2.01* –.02 .87
Interview Participation 0.36 0.17 2.12* –.02 .72
Reflection (z-standardized) 0.14 0.07 1.97^ –.01 .32

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-Seeking 0.18 0.06 2.83** .05 .32
(z-standardized)
2
R = .39, F(5, 53) = 6.83, p < .001, ΔR2 = .18, ΔF(2, 53) = 8.00, p < .01
3 (Constant) 3.33 0.14 23.54*** 2.96 3.67
Leadership Training 1 0.49 0.17 2.82** .07 .93
Leadership Training 2 0.56 0.19 3.01** .15 .98
Interview Participation 0.27 0.16 1.72^ –.06 .63
Reflection (z-standardized) 0.17 0.06 2.72** .03 .30
Feedback-Seeking 0.21 0.06 3.64** .09 .32
(z-standardized)
Feedback-Seeking × Reflection 0.24 0.06 3.69** .12 .38
R2 = .52, F(6, 52) = 9.32, p < .001, ΔR2 = .13, ΔF1, 52) = 13.62, p < .01.
Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

Note. N = 60; ^p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Feedback-seeking and reflection 45

Figure 1. Interaction of Feedback-Seeking and Reflection on Transfer

of Training

4.5

4
Transfer of Training

3.5
Low Reflection
3
High Reflection
2.5

1.5

1
Low Feedback-Seeking High Feedback-Seeking

be necessary for transfer of training. In the following section, we integrate the

findings of Study 2 with the results of Study 1 and discuss them together.

Overall Discussion
In this article, we aimed at shedding light on informal learning behaviors
that participants of formal training employ to continue learning when back
at work. Specifically, we examined the significance of feedback-seeking and
reflection for transfer of training within the context of formal leadership train-
ing. We provided theoretical considerations as well as empirical evidence from
a partially mixed-method field investigation at the intersection of formal train-
ing and informal learning at the workplace.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate feedback-seeking
and reflection and their joint effects on transfer of training. We suggest three
main conclusions from the integration of our qualitative and quantitative
studies: First, both studies imply that feedback-seeking and reflection are pos-
itively related to transfer of training as perceived by participants of leadership
development programs. Second, the results of Study 1 suggest that feedback-
seeking and reflection serve differential purposes: Reflection points toward
the potential for further improvement, whereas feedback-seeking consolidates
a specific learning trajectory and boosts the learners’ confidence. Third, the
results of Study 2 support the assumption that feedback-seeking and reflec-
tion complement each other in their effects on transfer of training: Transfer of
training was highest when both feedback-seeking and reflection were high.
In fact, from the simple slope analysis, it becomes apparent that
if reflection is low, feedback-seeking does not have any further effect on

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

46 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

transfer of training. This is in line with Anseel et al.’s (2009) finding that
reflection combined with feedback led to better performance than feedback
alone and vice versa. They attributed their results to the depth of informa-
tion processing resulting from reflection, which facilitates the organization,
integration, and access of the information gained from feedback. Further-
more, they assumed that feedback helps to direct reflection (Anseel et al.,
2009). We support this interpretation and conclude from our findings that
feedback-seeking without reflecting about transfer experiences might not
have any effect on transfer of training because the information obtained by
feedback-seeking is not sufficiently used to understand and learn from the
experience. On the other hand, reflecting about transfer experiences without
seeking feedback might result in biased and unconstructive forms of reflec-
tion (Watkins, 2008). More research is needed to examine the underlying
mechanisms of the combined effect of feedback-seeking and reflection on
transfer of training, focusing on both subjective and objective measures of
transfer of training.
Contribution and Theoretical Implications
Our research follows the call for research on the interrelated nature of different
kinds of workplace learning by focusing on the transfer of formal training with
the help of informal learning. A major strength of our approach is the par-
tially mixed-method design combining a qualitative and a quantitative study.
To better understand the triggers, characteristics, and outcomes of feedback-
seeking and reflection in transfer of training, we conducted an interview
study, followed by a quantitative study that focused on the interplay of these
two learning behaviors. These studies helped us to address different research
questions, which are equally important, to understand the role of feedback-
seeking and reflection in transfer of training and to integrate the results (Leech
& Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Onwuegbuzie & Corrigan, 2014). Findings of our
research contribute to the literatures on workplace learning in general and on
transfer of training specifically. More precisely, it extends our understanding
of informal learning behaviors in transfer of training, thus opening the ‘black
box’ of what individuals actually do (or should do) to transfer formal training
to their daily work. Our findings imply that participants of formal training,
who engaged in feedback-seeking and reflection, report a more successful
transfer of training. Earlier research focused mainly on the effects of motiva-
tion to learn (e.g., learning orientation; Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), cogni-
tive and meta-cognitive abilities (e.g., ability to learn; Ree & Earles, 1991;
self-management capabilities; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991), or moderators
of transfer of training (e.g., design of the training; Blume et al., 2010). The
results of our research highlight the necessity to extend the models of trans-
fer of training by including learners’ informal learning behaviors after formal
training, that is, learning behaviors rather than individual traits, capabilities, or
characteristics of the training.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 47

The importance of informal learning behaviors has been long recognized,

in particular when complex skills such as leadership need to be learned (Laker
& Powell, 2011; Yelon & Ford, 1999). Furthermore, DeRue and Myers (2014)
highlighted the importance of the ability to learn from experience for lead-
ership development and the emerging research on behavioral practices and
strategies individuals can use to do so. Our research adds to this literature in
suggesting feedback-seeking and reflection as two important informal learning
behaviors to enhance learners’ transfer of leadership training.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
In the following, we discuss the need for future research in the light of our
studies’ limitations. First, the assessment of transfer of training was based on
self-reports in both studies and biases pertaining to single source and com-
mon method might operate in Study 2 (for implications see Blume et al.,
2010). We think that a subjective assessment of improvement in participants’
leadership knowledge and skills is appropriate because we need to under-
stand subjective changes in work practice (Black & Earnest, 2009; Blume
et al., 2010; see also Enos et al., 2003; and Liebermann & Hoffmann, 2008).
However, self-reports might be biased in several ways. For example, individu-
als showing feedback-seeking and reflection might simply be more motivated
than other participants, and motivation would thus be a major factor explain-
ing successful transfer of training (Grohmann, Beller, & Kauffeld, 2014). Fur-
ther, we must consider that training participants who have the impression
that they learned a lot in the training might generalize this impression to their
transfer of training. In order to rule out these alternative explanations, we
conducted additional analyses on the data from Study 2. We controlled for
learning motivation (“When I left the last module, I couldn’t wait to get back
to work to try what I learned”; “In the time period since the last module of the
program, it was very important to me to try and apply what I learned in the
leadership program”) and satisfaction with the learning outcomes of the train-
ing (“I learned a lot in the leadership program”). We still found the interaction
effect between feedback-seeking and reflection in predicting transfer of train-
ing. This makes us confident that our findings go beyond mere motivational
effects or effects of general satisfaction with the training. Nevertheless, because
all sources of transfer of training evaluations are potentially biased in different
ways (Chiaburu, Sawyer, & Thoroughgood, 2010; Ghodsian, Bjork, & Benja-
min, 1997), future research should assess both self-ratings and other ratings
of transfer of training as well as objective data (e.g., objectively measured
improvement in skills and outcomes that were addressed and targeted in the
training) illustrating efficient transfer of training in order to complement the
self-report of participants.
Second, the quantitative data of Study 2 was cross-sectional, thus not
allowing for causal conclusions. However, our findings are in line with the
frameworks of Ashford and DeRue (2012) and Nesbit (2012) and are thus

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

48 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

supported by theory. Nonetheless, future research should include longitudinal

designs to investigate triggers, characteristics, and outcomes at different points
of measurement. Diary study approaches (Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf,
2010) are valuable for the investigation of causal relationships among feed-
back-seeking, reflection, and transfer of training and the interplay between
feedback-seeking and reflection with other proactive behaviors. Diary studies
are, however, an intervention themselves and therefore likely have an effect
on the frequency and intensity of feedback-seeking and reflection. Thus, those
studies should include a control group that undergoes less frequent surveying.
Additionally, to understand the joint effect of feedback-seeking and reflection,
experimental studies may compare a training group that receives instructions
on how to seek feedback and/or reflect on transfer experiences to a control
group.
For practical reasons, we faced the same necessity as other field studies to
use short scales to measure our constructs. However, the fact that both Study
1 and Study 2 provide evidence that supports our assumptions about the
importance of feedback-seeking and reflection for transfer of training makes
us confident about the robustness of our findings beyond methodological
biases.
Third, we considered only individual reflection, whereas newer research
has raised the issue of extending the traditional concepts of reflection at
work to include collective inquiry of experience for the purpose of learning,
for example, in the broader context of action learning programs (Marquardt,
2000; Marquardt, 2011; Marquardt, Leonard, Freedman, & Hill, 2009;
McLaughlin & Thorpe, 1993; Raelin, 2001, 2006). As Raelin (2006, p. 153)
highlighted, “reflection is bolstered by feedback from mutual learners who
participate in a real-time debriefing of the learner’s workplace experiences.”
We thus propose that structured feedback-seeking might serve as an ideal
starting point for joint reflection. Investigating transfer of training under the
lens of action learning also addresses the potential of peer feedback on the
learner’s use of newly gained knowledge and skills: Action learning creates the
conditions in which managers learn from their own experience in a real-life
problem, helped by and helping others facing similar situations (Marquardt,
2000, p. 238). A promising direction for future research is the examination of
peer feedback and reflective discourse in a community of learners and their
effects on transfer of training.
Fourth, future research should adopt a broader focus on the condi-
tions and prerequisites of feedback-seeking, reflection, and their interplay in
enhancing the transfer of formal training, considering both individual fac-
tors (e.g., goal orientation, meta-cognitive skills, or self-efficacy; DeGeest &
Brown, 2011) and organizational factors (e.g., supervisor support; Franke &
Felfe, 2012; or job characteristics; McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow,
1994). Earlier research on the success factors of transfer of training (Blume et
al., 2010; Burke & Hutchins, 2007) as well as proactive behavior (e.g., Tornau

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 49

& Frese, 2013) should be taken into account in order to come up with a sys-
tematic framework of predictors of feedback-seeking and reflection. Guiding
questions could be the following: Why do some managers seek feedback and/
or reflect on transfer experiences while others do not? Which factors influence
the likelihood and quality of feedback-seeking and reflection? How can HRD
professionals facilitate feedback-seeking and reflection after formal training?
Related to that, in our study, participants reported rather confirmative
feedback-seeking, which they were ready to accept. While feedback accep-
tance is important (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979), and individuals can learn
from confirming feedback, nonconfirming feedback is also important to learn
(see also Anseel et al., 2015). However, seeking for nonconfirming (negative)
feedback involves the risk of face loss or ego-related costs that individuals
tend to avoid (Anseel et al., 2015). Future research should investigate condi-
tions that decrease the perceived risk of nonconfirming feedback in transfer
of training. In particular, different feedback sources (e.g., supervisors versus
peers) and their supportive versus nonsupportive attitudes concerning trans-
fer of training might be of interest here.
Finally, while feedback-seeking and reflection have been shown to be
important learning behaviors, other learning behaviors might be equally
important. For instance, we suggest investigating the impact of formal and
informal goal setting together with feedback-seeking and reflection within
the context of transfer of training (see Johnson, Garrison, Hernez-Broome,
Fleenor, & Steed, 2012). Jordan, Messner, and Becker (2009) found the con-
cept ‘reflection-in-action’ to be closely related to mindfulness. They argue
that integrating the literature of mindfulness with the literature on reflection
might help to understand learning in organizations better. “(M)indful engage-
ment describes a process for how individuals can approach their experiences,
go through their experiences, and reflect on their experiences in ways that
enhance the lessons of experience” (Ashford & DeRue, 2012, p. 149). A learn-
ing orientation and learning goals help to develop a learning mind-set; active
experimentation, feedback-seeking, and emotion regulation are helpful learn-
ing behaviors, and reflection “captures the lessons of experience” (Ashford &
DeRue, 2012, p. 152). We thus encourage future research to study the effects
of mindful engagement on transfer of training.
Implications for Managerial Practice
The findings of Study 1 reflect that informal learning at the workplace is
largely invisible because much of it is either taken for granted or not rec-
ognized as learning at all (Eraut, 2004). This points toward the necessity to
address informal learning behaviors to enhance transfer of training already
during the formal training. Feedback-seeking and reflection should be encour-
aged and explicitly instructed during training (e.g., follow-up after the train-
ing, implementation of learning diaries and other reflective learning activities,
establishment of communities-of-learning or learning partnerships, etc.) so

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

50 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

that learners become aware of the importance of feedback-seeking and reflec-

tion and use them more deliberately and systematically. The findings from
Study 1 further indicate that learners use feedback-seeking and reflection to
fulfill different purposes: Reflection focused mostly on the potential for further
improvement, thereby pointing to new learning trajectories; feedback-seeking
was applied in a rather confirmatory manner to encourage a specific learning
trajectory. It was also used as a shortcut for effortful reflection when there
were time constraints or conflicting demands, allowing learners to get a quick
impression of whether they were on the right learning track or not. Instruct-
ing learners on how to make broader use of reflection and feedback, to both
generate and test hypotheses about their transfer progress, will help to unlock
the seemingly underused potential of these behaviors.
Our key finding of Study 2 shows that transfer of training is most effec-
tive if learners engage in both feedback-seeking and reflection (rather than in
none of these behaviors or only one of them). However, we also found that
only few individuals engage to a great extent in both behaviors. Therefore, it
is crucial to inform them that they need to both seek feedback and reflect on
their transfer experience in order to achieve the best results. In general, we
suggest that informal learning alongside or after formal training should be
integrated in the course design (Knipfer, Shaughnessy, Hentschel, & Schmid,
2015).
Further implications of this research go beyond the training context and
point to the relevance of the organizational climate for feedback-seeking and
reflection: For example, Edmondson (1999) pointed to the relevance of psy-
chological safety for asking for feedback. Similarly, Mezirow (2000) and Fook,
White, and Gardner (2000) highlighted critical acceptance as crucial precondi-
tion for learning through reflection, referring to an organizational climate in
which different perspectives are valued and critical reflection is encouraged.
Such organizational climate is a catalyst for developing leaders of the future.

Conclusion
We conclude from our research that it is worthwhile both from a theoretical
and a practical perspective to study informal learning behaviors alongside for-
mal training as facilitators of transfer of training, particularly when complex
skills such as leadership are taught. Our research shows a reinforcing effect of
feedback-seeking and reflection on transfer of training. However, our qualita-
tive insights raise questions yet to be answered about when, how, and why
participants use feedback-seeking and reflection effectively.

Notes
1. Reflection about a transfer experience may include the evaluation of received
feedback; in this case, received feedback complements the learner’s own

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 51

evaluation of the transfer experience. The content of reflection, however, is

still the specific transfer experience.
2. Since the sample was predominantly male and to secure anonymity, we
use the male form for all participants. Please also note that many of the
interviewees were not native speakers of English.
3. We would like to thank Prof. Holton for kindly allowing us to use the
adapted items for this study.

References
Anseel, F., Beatty, A., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30
years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior.
Journal of Management, 41(1), 318–348.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task perfor-
mance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 23–35.
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465–487.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review
of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6),
773–799.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of
the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 67–79.
Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engage-
ment. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 146–154.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998). Accountability in 360 degree feedback. HR Magazine, 43,
96–104.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behav-
ior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 11(2), 167–203.
Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral
Scientist, 56(6), 814–828.
Black, A. M., & Earnest, G. W. (2009). Measuring the outcomes of leadership development
programs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 184–196.
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London,
England: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1990). Making the most of experience. Studies in Continuing Education,
12(2), 61–80.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review.
Human Resource Development Review, 6, 263–296.
Chiaburu, D. S., Sawyer, K.B., & Thoroughgood, C. N. (2010). Transferring more than learned
in training: Employees’ and managers’ (over)generalization of skills. (2010). International Jour-
nal of Selection and Assessment, 18(4), 380–393.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation
to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
654–665.
Conlon, T. J. (2004). A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for prac-
tice in developing global professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28,
283–295.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

52 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

Crommelinck, M., & Anseel, F. (2013). Understanding and encouraging feedback-seeking

behaviour: A literature review. Medical Education, 47(3), 232–241.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11,
581–613.
DeGeest, D., & Brown, K. G. (2011). The role of goal orientation in leadership development.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 157–175.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process
of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35,
627–647.
DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Myers, C. G. (2012). Learning agility: In search of conceptual
clarity and theoretical grounding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(3), 258–279.
De Rue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future
research. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. W. (2012). A quasi-experi-
mental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(5), 997–1015.
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of develop-
mental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(4), 859–875.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Conceptual issues and critical conditions.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 421–435.
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning:
How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 369–387.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2),
247–273.
Fook, J., White, S., & Gardner, F. (2006). Critical reflection: A review of current understandings
and literature. In S. White, J. Fook & F. Gardner (Eds.), Critical reflection in health and welfare
(pp. 3–20). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2012). Transfer of leadership skills: The influence of motivation to trans-
fer and organizational support in managerial training. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(3),
138–147.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self efficacy and post-training
intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel
Psychology, 44(4), 837–861.
Ghodsian, D., Bjork, R. A., & Benjamin, A. S. (1997). Evaluating training during training:
Obstacles and opportunities. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for 21st cen-
tury technology: Applications of psychological research (pp. 63–88). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Grohmann, A., Beller, J., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Exploring the critical role of motivation to transfer
in the training transfer process. International Journal of Training and Development, 18(2), 84–103.
Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. (2000). Development of a generalized learning trans-
fer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333–360.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor. M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.
Jacobs, R., & Park, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning: Implica-
tions for theory development and research in human resource development. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(2), 133–150.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Feedback-seeking and reflection 53

Johnson, S. K., Garrison, L. L., Hernez-Broome, G., Fleenor, J. W., & Steed, J. L. (2012). Go for
the goal(s): Relationship between goal setting and transfer of training following leadership
development. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 555–569.
Jordan, S., Messner, M., & Becker, A. (2009). Reflection and mindfulness in organizations: Ratio-
nales and possibilities for integration. Management Learning, 40(4), 465–473.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., … Yeung, E. (2000).
Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381–395.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Knipfer, K., Kump, B., Wessel, D., & Cress, U. (2013). Reflection as a catalyst for organisational
learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(1), 30–48.
Knipfer, K., Shaughnessy, B., Hentschel, T., & Schmid, E. (2015). Leading in academia: A cur-
ricular example for developing women scientists for leadership roles. Academy of Management
Best Paper Proceedings.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2000). The role of feedback in management training settings. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 11(4), 381–401.
Laker, D. R., & Powell, J. L. (2011). The differences between hard and soft skills and their
relative impact on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), 111–122.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs.
Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43, 265–275.
Liebermann, S., & Hoffmann, S. (2008). The impact of practical relevance on training transfer:
Evidence from a service quality training program for German bank clerks. International Journal
of Training and Development, 12(2), 74–86.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London, England: Sage.
Madzar, S. (1995). Feedback seeking behavior: A review of the literature and implications for
HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(4), 337–349.
Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., Giancaspro, M. L., & Morciano, D. (2015). Formal and
informal learning in the workplace: A research review. International Journal of Training and
Development, 19(1), 1–17.
Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Action learning and leadership. The Learning Organization, 7(5),
233–240.
Marquardt, M. J. (2011). Optimizing the power of action learning: Real-time strategies for developing
leaders, building teams, and transforming organizations (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.
Marquardt, M. J., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A. M., & Hill, C. C. (2009). Action learning for devel-
oping leaders and organizations: Principles, strategies, and cases. Washington, DC: APA.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 89, 25–34.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the develop-
mental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544–560.
McLaughlin, H., & Thorpe, R. (1993). Action learning—a paradigm in emergence: The prob-
lems facing a challenge to traditional management education and development. British Journal
of Management, 4, 19–27.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557–589.
Nesbit, P. L. (2012). The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self-
regulation processes in self-directed leadership development. Human Resource Development
Review, 11(2), 203–226.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

54 Sparr, Knipfer, Willems

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research:
An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2),
79–93.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Corrigan, J. A. (2014). Improving the quality of mixed research reports
in the field of human resource development and beyond: A call for rigor as an ethical practice.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 273–299.
Raelin, J. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32(1), 11–
30.
Raelin, J. (2006). Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 5, 152–168.
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 321–332.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on
the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(1), 44–96.
Vitale, D. C., Armenakis, A. A., & Field, H. S. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantita-
tive methods for organizational diagnosis. Possible priming effects? Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 2(1), 87–105.
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin,
134(2), 163–206.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2014). Developing individual and organizational learning
capacity. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), 10–14.
Yanagizawa, S. (2008). Effect of goal difficulty and feedback seeking on goal attainment and
learning. Japanese Psychological Research, 50(3), 137–144.
Yelon, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1999). Pursuing a multidimensional view of transfer. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 12(3), 58–78.

Dr. Jennifer L. Sparr is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Management Department of
the University of Konstanz, Germany.

Dr. Kristin Knipfer is a senior researcher and lecturer at the School of Management of the
Technical University of Munich, Germany.

Friederike Willems received her Master of Science from the Ludwig-Maximilians-

University of Munich, Germany and is currently employed as a Consultant for Leadership
Development.

Corresponding author:
Dr. Jennifer L. Sparr can be contacted at [Link]@[Link]

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Copyright of Human Resource Development Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.