Training delivery methods as source of dynamic capabilities: the case of sports’ organisations

Abstract

Purpose
Training as an important source of dynamic capabilities (DC) is important to the performance of sports’ organisations (SO) both to athletes and to non-athletic staff. There are a variety of training delivery methods (TDMs). The purpose of this study is to determine from a set of six TDMs which one is considered to be the most suitable to enhance performance of SO.

Design/methodology/approach
Based on the DC theory, a cross-sectional survey from a sample of 554 workers was used to assess which TDM is considered to be the most efficient and presents higher efficacy, according to the preferences and perception of the staff.

Findings
It was concluded that: “on-the-job training” is considered to be the preferred and most effective TDM; formal/informal coaching is the second choice, in terms of perceived effectiveness and “online learning” is considered the least effective TDM. TDM’s preferences and results’ perceptions do not change according to differentiating issues such as gender, educational level of trainees or even hierarchical position.

Research limitations/implications
The present study adopted a cross-sectional survey where relationships and correlations were developed continuously. Although difficult to obtain, it would have been advisable to use a survey based on longitudinal data. Results should only be considered for the purposes of the present sample, although it may be considered that they are generalizable to similar organisations and some preliminary results are raised that worth being analysed further.

Practical implications
The outcomes of this study will help managers of SO, according to the situation to be addressed, to choose the best TDM for their non-athletic staff, the ones that will best support their process of continuous improvement and show the best results in terms of renewal of their DC and resources.

Originality/value
This study highlights the training process as a source of DC contributing to overall organisation’s performance and competitive advantage. It enlarges knowledge on SO, from the pure athletic view to the managerial point of view, and operationalises training to decide the most adequate TDM to improve DC and support the success of SO. Considering that it is usually difficult to measure the concrete results of training on the organisational performance, this is also an important field of study for the management theory in the domain of strategy and human resources because the bridge considered here has not been much developed for a long time.

Full text

Training delivery methods as
source of dynamic capabilities:
the case of sports’ organisations
Marco António Mexia Arraya and Jose António Porfírio
Department of Social Sciences and Management, Universidade Aberta,
Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose –Training as an important source of dynamic capabilities (DC) is important to the performance of
sports’ organisations (SO) both to athletes and to non-athletic staff. There are a variety of training delivery
methods (TDMs). The purpose of this study is to determine from a set of six TDMs which one is considered to
be the most suitable to enhance performance of SO.
Design/methodology/approach –Based on the DC theory, a cross-sectional survey from a sample of
554 workers was used to assess which TDM is considered to be the most efcient and presents higher efcacy,
according to the preferences and perception of the staff.
Findings –It was concluded that: “on-the-job training” is considered to be the preferred and most effective
TDM; formal/informal coaching is the second choice, in terms of perceived effectiveness and “online learning”
is considered the least effective TDM. TDM’s preferences and results’ perceptions do not change according to
differentiating issues such as gender, educational level of trainees or even hierarchical position.
Research limitations/implications –The present study adopted a cross-sectional survey where
relationships and correlations were developed continuously. Although difcult to obtain, it would have been
advisable to use a survey based on longitudinal data. Results should only be considered for the purposes of the
present sample, although it may be considered that they are generalizable to similar organisations and some
preliminary results are raised that worth being analysed further.
Practical implications –The outcomes of this study will help managers of SO, according to the situation
to be addressed, to choose the best TDM for their non-athletic staff, the ones that will best support their process
of continuous improvement and show the best results in terms of renewal of their DC and resources.
Originality/value –This study highlights the training process as a source of DC contributing to overall
organisation’s performance and competitive advantage. It enlarges knowledge on SO, from the pure athletic
view to the managerial point of view, and operationalises training to decide the most adequate TDM to
improve DC and support the success of SO. Considering that it is usually difcult to measure the concrete
results of training on the organisational performance, this is also an important eld of study for the
management theory in the domain of strategy and human resources because the bridge considered here has
not been much developed for a long time.
Keywords Dynamic capabilities, Resource-based view, Training effectiveness, Job training,
Sports management, Training delivering methods
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Dynamic capabilities (DC), implicit on the overall resource base, are crucial to the success of
organisations, especially when dealing with very demanding and constantly changing
environments. By contributing to improve the capacitation and performance of the human
resources (HR), training promotes organizational capabilities and so is a way to indirectly
propel organisational performance.
Because HR, as well as strategic development goals, are intrinsic to each organisation, it
is crucial to identify the most effective and cost efcient type of training delivery methods
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm
EJTD
41,4
354
Received 26 February 2016
Revised 4 June 2016
17 August 2016
27 December 2016
16 February 2017
Accepted 17 February 2017
European Journal of Training and
Development
Vol. 41 No. 4, 2017
pp. 354-372
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-9012
DOI 10.1108/EJTD-02-2016-0012

(TDMs), not just one that meets the best the specic training needs of the organisation but
also that truly promotes its long term success and sustainability.
Sports’ organisations (SO) in this regard are paradigmatic because products offered are
basically the same between competitors in the same sports business. Their short-term
success depends heavily on their operational capabilities, derived from the training
capabilities they are able to offer to their athletic staff, translated into their capacity to win
competition by competition (game by game). Financial performance, however, as a long-term
indicator of sustainability, is not so direct to measure, rst because they are usually classied
as not-for-prot organisations and second because their long-term success must be
preferably measured in terms of longevity, which depends heavily on their capacity to use
DC to transform their operational capabilities into not-easy-to-imitate organizational
capabilities – that provide them effective sources of competitive advantage in terms of
sports/athletic characteristics.
Long-term success of SO depends heavily on the training provided to their non-athletic
staff. However, not much attention and very little research has been conducted to identify
and examine the effectiveness of TDM and trainee’s preferences (Ervin and Hogan, 2013)in
terms of their implications for the perceived success of SO. But this remains a crucial aspect
for their long-term success.
This research provides empirical results about the preference of trainees from SO on the
TDMs that best serve both their training needs and the organisational performance. It
contributes to both managers and training professionals, by establishing a prole of
preferable TDMs used by non-athletic workers in SO.
Literature review
Resource-based view (RBV) theory considers a workforce, grounded in individual talents,
training and experience (Barney, 2001) as one of the basic factors that support organisations’
goals (Hatch and Dyer, 2004), and an important source of competitive advantage, whenever
it can be considered a VRIO (valuable, rare, inimitable and organizational) resource (Teece
et al., 1997). Human resources show the ability to integrate, build and recongure internal
and external competences (Barney, 2001;Ployhart, 2006;Teece, 2007) and, in a situation of
resource scarcity, may be the key to an organisation’s ability to compete (Greer et al., 2015).
Capabilities, whether management, production or innovation related, result from the
interconnection of people, knowledge, technology, money, tools and processes, and they
enable a rm to out-perform its rivals whenever customers’ value and competitors can’t beat
them (Leinwand and Mainardi, 2010). Capabilities translate into organisational routines, and
they entail patterns of coordination between people and other resources (Grant, 1991),
allowing resources to keep together and “explore” them advantageously. Capabilities are not
observable, are not directly related with an organisation’s output, are difcult to quantify
and cannot be given a monetary value (Zhou and Li, 2009).
Training is the basic tool to transform ordinary people into a valuable resource for the
organisation (Arraya, 2006;McGrath, 2013) allowing the HR to develop their talent and
progress (Appelbaum et al., 2000;Combs et al., 2006) to achieve maximum benets (Kuijer,
2007), thus becoming sources of competitive advantage.
In this sense, training “it’s not a luxury” (Noe, 2008, p. 3) and it propels resources to
develop capabilities from which it depends the capacity of organisations to participate in the
global marketplaces and offer high-quality products and services. Resources and capabilities
are the source of organisational learning and innovation (Andersén, 2007) and they depend,
amongst others, on organisational training, which is vital to organisational success (Aguinis
and Kraiger, 2009;Grossman and Salas, 2011). Quality training improves organisational
355
Training
delivery
methods

capabilities through employees’ satisfaction, morale retention and enhanced opportunities
for advancement, skill and knowledge development, as well as professional growth (Combs
et al., 2006;Matens, 2005;Goldstein, 1993;Kuijer, 2007), reecting in improved bottom line
results through customers’ satisfaction (Matens, 2005). Organisations need appropriate
strategies and methods to embrace workforce potential (Coff, 1997) whereas training is
clearly a means to enhance the capability to perform their business goals (Kim, 2007) and so
to promote DC.
To promote the expected performance, trainees should receive an appropriate stimulus
(Borresen and Lambert, 2009;Foster, 1998) which usually comes not just from training
contents, but mostly from the specic TDMs used (including exercises, repetition and
workload) (Forteza de la Rosa and Farto, 2007).
A TDM consists of the techniques and materials used by trainers to prepare and execute
the training, and transfer knowledge to the workplace (Ervin and Hogan, 2013; Staud et al.,
1993) to achieve the required learning goals (Ervin and Hogan, 2013;Pineda, 2010). The
choice of one or more TDMs for a specic training plan or programme, must take into
consideration: the plan or programme goals, resources available, organisational culture,
available time and money, trainee’s characteristics/personality and preferences and the
motivation regarding the method among the participants (Bostrom et al., 1988;DeSimone
et al., 2003;Gwebu and Wang, 2007;Smith, 2000).
Once the adequate method has been identied, it is applied to the training plan in the
preparation and execution phases (Ervin and Hogan, 2013;Staudt et al., 1993).Considering
that workplace is not a unied environment, and each person is different, it is advisable to
consider different TDMs according to employees’ characteristics (Tynjälä, 2008).
Training effectiveness (measuring the improvement in the organisations’ capacity to
achieve its goals) and efciency (comparing resources used and results obtained by an
organization derived from training) (Winand et al., 2010) is ensured when the training
process is based on competence and is properly executed to meet and complement
organisational needs, thereby assuring success of trainees’ development programme (Denby,
2010; Martin, 2007; Ron and Kramlinger, 1982).
There are basically three groups of TDMs (Noe et al., 2006):
(1) Expository methods, characterized by the passive attitude of participants in training,
where trainees are considered to be mere receivers of information (AL-Ajlouni et al.,
2010). These methods are more adequate for the presentation of new facts,
information, different philosophies and solutions, or alternative methods for solving
problems. This type of TDMs includes some types of online learning/elearning (OL)
and lectures (Lect);
(2) Active methods, that require participants to actively intervene in training. These
methods are great for the development of specic skills and understanding how the
skills and behaviours can be transferred to the workplace. They are suited to develop
capabilities in performing a task and managing interpersonal factors that arise in the
workplace (AL-Ajlouni et al., 2010) and include OTJT and formal/informal coaching
(FIC);
(3) Group methods, which aim to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of a team or
group by sharing ideas and experiences, constructing the group identity and
understanding the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and individual strengths
and weaknesses, and also the remaining members of the group (AL-Ajlouni et al.,
2010). This type of TDMs includes networks and seminars (NetS) and internal classes
conducted in classroom (ICC).
EJTD
41,4
356

This initial preparatory stage is focused on trainees and tools to be trained, and ideally
should be tailored for each individual, thereby increasing the training results and
transferring them to a higher level at the workplace because of the intrinsic motivation of
each receptor (Bostrom et al., 1999;Kaplan-Mor et al., 2011;Nikandrou et al., 2009;Wexley
and Latham, 2002), aiming to achieve high levels of knowledge transfer (Coulson et al., 2003).
The most effective TDM, as a manager’s choice, will be the one that best considers the
skill’s and task’s characteristics during the preparation stage and match them with the
workforce’s characteristics (Arthur et al., 2003) aligning them with organisational needs and
training goals.
Because the DC vision is concerned with resource deployment (Eisenhardt and Martin,
2000;Makadok, 2001) and the capacity to renew workforce capacity to deal with
vigorously-competitive environments (Amirvany et al., 2012), effective TDM, that is, those
that can be considered a real source of DC, imply processes or routines that must have an
impact on the organisations’ resource base by integrating, reconguring and creating new
resources (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009;Easterby-Smith et al., 2009;Teece, 2007). So,
effective TDMs must enable the organisation to prepare in advance and adapt to changes, be
decisive for the organisation’s survival/success (Barreto, 2010) and develop organisational
skills, resources and functional competences (Teece et al., 1997, p. 515). The capability to
choose the most adequate TDMs may allow the organisation to go beyond the
difcult-to-imitate resources and to guarantee that it can achieve competitive advantages
through a difcult-to-replicate DC (Easterby-Smith et al., 2009;Teece, 2007;Winter, 2003).
Effective TDMs are a source of DC if they show the ability to purposefully create, extend
and modify the resource base of an organisation, which includes their tangible, intangible
and human assets as well as the capabilities the organisation owns, controls or has access to,
on a preferential basis (Helfat et al., 2007, p. 4; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). So, TDMs can
make a difference in the development of DC.
SO show a relevant potential to test this relationship considering:
• The worldwide dynamics of the sport’s industry and its signicance, which goes
beyond the gym or playground, covering social, economic and political elds, and its
role helping to establish national identity (Adcroft and TecKman, 2009).
• Sports’ competitions are a laboratory for testing economic theories (Kahn, 2000).
• Competition in the sports’ environment, as noted by Soriano (2011), is denitely
different from competition in other markets. While in most industries an
organisation’s welfare is improved when competition is eliminated, dynamics in sports
is different: “products” offered by SO are very similar (in same championships) and
elimination of competition ultimately may eliminate the industry by ending emotion
on results and competitiveness of fans. SO must not just continue to exist, but should
also be doing comparatively better than their rivals of relatively equal strength (Berri
and Schmidt, 2006).
• The relative easiness to measure outcomes and results in sports environment.
• Competitive advantage, the principal factor that results from training, RBV and DC is
crucial for SO.
Training as a capability can be difcult to replicate (Teece, 2007, p.1320). Although it can be
possible to adopt the same TDM and training contents, it is very difcult (if not almost
impossible) to replicate the training approach and execution (Forteza de la Rosa and Farto,
2007). SO (as well as any other types of organisations) always need to identify the most
357
Training
delivery
methods

effective and cost efcient type of training adapted to the needs and preferences of trainees
(Ervin and Hogan, 2013).
Research questions
Considering TDM as a source of DC can become a success factor for training, development
and organizational performance (Barreto, 2010;Arthur et al., 2003;Kale, 2000;Sumner, 1999)
basically for three reasons:
(1) DC are capabilities that affect changes in operational capabilities (Winter, 2003) and
they can inuence organizational performance (Barreto, 2010). Because they are
focused on learning and creativity, they should be built within the organization
rather than bought in (Makadok, 2001;Schilke, 2014;Teece, 2007) because they need
to be embedded in it (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000);
(2) When an employee completes proper training, he/she feels that the organisation cares
about his/her knowledge and career, and that usually has a positive impact on her/his
attitude towards the organisation improving the organisation’s culture, and his/her
knowledge, skills and outcomes (Esteves et al., 2002). In opposition, an inadequate
TDM can generate disappointment and discouragement amongst trainees (Choi et al.,
2007); and
(3) Acting as a DC – i.e. improving organisation’s learning, creativity and innovation
process – a TDM can alter, obtain, integrate and release resources, inuencing the
overall organisation’s performance and the capacity to exploit competitive
advantages (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).
Considering the perception of the persons inquired, and assuming the theoretical
background previously explained that supports the consideration of TDM as a source of DC,
this study presents a basic research question, that is:
RQ1. What kind of TDMs are most/least effective as a source of DC for non-athletic
workers’ training and development in SO?
The analysis here presented also allows answering to three other related sub-questions:
Q1. Do gender differences inuence the choice of non-athletic workers in SO in choosing
the most effective TDM?
Q2. Do hierarchical level differences inuence the choice of non-athletic workers in SO
when it is time to choose a TDM for their training and development?
Q3. Do differences in education level inuence the choice of non-athletic workers in SO in
choosing the most effective TDM?
Methodology
The following research model was used as the basis for our investigation (Figure 1).
We focus on TDM as a source of DC. Data sample was derived from a cross-sectional
survey method, using an inquiry directed to analyse the research questions from a group of
employees, administrative workers, supervisors, consultants and executive members
working in SO.
The wider set of responses (in terms of hierarchical positions) is justied by:
Organisations are a complex open system (Lewin and Regine, 1999), where the whole
is stronger than the sum of the parts. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that an
EJTD
41,4
358

executive or a high-level member knows the working conditions exactly all over the
organisation (Kianto, 2009);
Sometimes, executive or high-level members overestimate their organisation’s
strengths, potentially biasing the collected data (Price, 1997); and
The t-tests performed in other different surveys showed that responses of executive or
high-level members are considerably different, in about half of the items, from the
other staff. So, just surveying this segment would not adequately portray the entire
view of the organisations (Kianto, 2009).
Content of the survey was rst validated by a panel of experts. Revisions and improvements
were made to the instrument according to the panel’s suggestions. To sustain the credibility
of this research, a strict observance to all procedures was required to minimize common bias.
The authors emphasized rigorous and systematic data collection procedures, such as email
controlling and checking, if the respondent had his/her rst survey answer.
Regarding sample, online respondents were recruited from an internet professional
network (LinkedIn). A total of 19,950 surveys were emailed, from 32 LinkedIn sports
management debate groups, between July and August 2013. We have provided a brief
description of the research purpose, and a link to the survey hosted by a web-based survey
provider. Female participation was enthusiastically promoted in a cover message, because
they do not usually participate in inquiries directed to SO, thus aiming to better examine
gender differences among participants’ preferences.
Data obtained ensured generalization of results because it contained different jobs,
hierarchical positions, organisations and segments, hence mitigating the concern of
generalizing personality and interest data when they are obtained from a single organisation
and single occupation (Schaubroeck et al., 1998). A total of 768 respondents from all over the
world answered the survey but just 554, considering they were part of SO, were considered
valid responses (2.78 per cent).
In spite of the emphasis on female participation, male respondents made up 79.06 per cent
of the overall responses with female answers reaching 20.94 per cent. Average participant
Figure 1.
Research design
359
Training
delivery
methods

age was 38.72 years (SD ⫽9.73 years), and ranged from 19 to 67 years. Average tenure of
respondents in sports management was 8.68 years, with 88.64 per cent having a university
degree, 36.10 per cent a graduate’s degree, 40.43 per cent a master’s degree and 12.09 per cent
a PhD. In terms of hierarchy, 30.14 per cent were directors, 27.80 per cent were technical or
management staffs, while 22.92 per cent were undifferentiated staff of sports’ clubs.
Variables
The six TDMs considered for the purposes of our study were the following:
(1) OTJT: On-the-job training (TDM1) ¡Training method where the trainee, while in
his/her workplace and daily job, obtains competencies and skills, usually done
through a facilitator (a mentor or a demonstrator) that provides individual
instructions. This is usually a low cost solution and it’s specic for the organisation’s
work-scope/activity.
(2) FIC: Formal/informal coaching (TDM2) ¡Formal learning situations are associated
with institutionally sanctioned structures and (guided) delivery, whereas the informal
situations may be assumed to provoke learning but are likely to be unguided and/or
incidental (Mallett et al., 2009, p.327). The formal coaching process includes a
participant’s analysis, goal-setting, development execution plan, identication of
resources and support, setting of events and a schedule for monitoring progress. Informal
coaching is an on-going effort to turn every situation/opportunity into training, which
includes the facilitator/coach’s feedback during the situation/opportunity, and a
debrieng after work. It is cost-effective if done internally, and it is specic to the
organisation’s work-scope/activity. However, the coach also needs training, which can be
time-consuming for informal coaches.
(3) OL: Online Learning or E-Learning (TDM3) ¡Training via internet by an instructor or
facilitator who sets the pace and/or offers interaction with webcasts or scheduled internet
instructions (Gerzo et al., 2006). The participants can interact with each other but, usually
for a low cost solution, they usually learn by themselves. With the exception of OL
especially developed for a specic situation, OL courses tend to be more general and
theoretical than specic to an organisation’s activity.
(4) ICC: Internal courses conducted in a classroom setting (TDM4) ¡Training offered by an
internal instructor in a traditional classroom setting. The participants attend the training
where the instructor presents and explains course contents. This method provides an
opportunity for interaction and hands-on learning or practice (Gerzon et al., 2006), and it is
usually specic to the organisation’s work-scope or activity.
(5) Lect: Lecture (TDM5) ¡A lecture is an exposition to an audience to present information,
rules, procedures or teaching a particular subject. This method is used when the content
has to be shared with a large number of trainees.
(6) NetS: Networking/seminars (TDM6) ¡Workers attend a seminar, offered in-house by an
expert, in an industry’s event, or that can be organized by an external training specialist,
on a specic topic. At industry events and seminars organized by external training
specialists, workers can share experiences, problems and knowledge with their peers as
competitors/partners. Nonetheless, the retention and transfer of information might be
low.
Preferences regarding TDM for non-athletic workers of SO were obtained using the
measuring instrument developed by the MIT’s Training Alignment Team criteria (Gerzon
EJTD
41,4
360

et al., 2006). A pre-test was conducted on three Portuguese institutions, including: a sports
federation, a sports club and a school.
Survey was designed to measure preferences (divided by gender, hierarchical position
and education level) among the six listed methods considering:
• Perception of which method was the most, and the least, effective (they chose only one
method for each category).
• Perceived level of learning (effectiveness) in each of the six methods on a scale of 1-5,
whereas 1 represented “Not at all effective” and 5 represented “Highly effective”.
• Indication of the ranking of the top three methods from a rigorous training perspective.
The formula used to calculate the weighted score was designed by Simon (2010).
Statistics used
Respondent’s perceptions were ranked using percentages and the Spearman’s rank
correlation statistical tool was used to test the relationship between training frequency,
training method effectiveness and organisational performance. To rank the method
considered the most crucial, a weighted score was calculated for each of the items to obtain
a clear ranking. To assess gender, educational level and hierarchical positions’ differences,
we determined the variances’ homogeneity across items as an assumption to the t-test.
Cronbach’s alpha coefcient (Churchill, 1979; Cortina, 1993) was used to examine the
consistency of the responses.
Internal consistency of the questionnaires’ factors for each different factor was examined
through Cronbach’s Alpha. The assessed reliability found (Churchill, 1979; Cortina, 1993)
acceptable results (0.7 ⱕ
␣
⬍0.8) for TDM composed of six variables (0.75), Training
Frequency composed of two variables (0.71), and Performance composed of two variables
(0.78).
Data analysis and results
Experience / participation
Table I presents the participation of respondents in different TDMs. Because respondents
indicated to have experience with all methods, correlations between experience and training
frequency will be discussed further.
There were no statistically signicant gender differences regarding experience with
different methods, except for Lect. However, it is not signicant.
Effectiveness of training
Participants were asked to choose one among the six indicated TDMs. Tables II and III
present results obtained.
Table I.
Which of the following
methods have you
participated in?
Female Male Total
Exp (N⫽116) (%) Exp (N⫽438) (%) Exp (N⫽554) (%)
On-the-job training (OTJT) 92 79.31 351 80.14 443 79.96
Formal/informal coaching (FIC) 95 81.90 334 76.26 429 77.44
Networking/seminars (NetS) 80 68.97 321 73.29 401 72.38
Internal courses conducted in a
classroom setting (ICC) 82 70.69 317 72.37 399 72.02
Lecture (Lect) 87 75.00 281 64.16 368 66.43
Online Learning (OL) 77 66.38 269 61.42 346 62.45
361
Training
delivery
methods

In total, 48.92 per cent of respondents consider OTJT the most effective TDM, and FIC the
second most effective TDM. These two methods together guarantee 72.02 per cent of the
answers for the most effective TDMs. NetS and Lect are the third and fourth choices,
respectively, with very close rankings.
Regarding the least effective TDM, participants’ rst choice was OL with 54.15 per cent
followed by ICC with 14.98 per cent.
There were no statistically signicant gender differences in reference to the most/least
effective method (Table II and III).
There are also no signicant differences in terms of TDM’s effectiveness, dependent from
the educational level or hierarchical position of staff. All groups chose OTJT as the most
effective TDM (Tables IV and V).
Chi-square test for independence
Chi-square tests may be used to determine the signicance of differences between two
independent groups on categorical variables (Ott, 1993). We have used a chi-square test to
look for any association between “hierarchical position” and TDM’s preferences. Results
obtained (
␹
2
⫽2.37, p⫽0.971) revealed that there are no statistically signicant associations
between the two variables (Table VI).
Table II.
The most effective
TDM for training and
development
Female (N⫽116) Male (N⫽438) Total (N⫽554)
N(%) N(%) N(%)
OTJT 62 53.45 209 47.72 271 48.92
FIC 25 21.55 103 23.52 128 23.10
NetS 8 6.90 43 9.82 51 9.21
Lect 10 8.62 38 8.68 48 8.66
OL 4 3.44 27 6.17 31 5.60
ICC 7 6.03 18 4.11 25 4.51
Table III.
The least effective
TDM for training and
development
Female (N⫽116) Male (N⫽438) Total (N⫽554)
N(%) N(%) N(%)
OL 72 62.07 228 52.06 300 54.15
ICC 11 9.48 72 16.44 83 14.98
NetS 9 7.76 42 9.59 51 9.21
Lect 13 11.21 34 7.76 47 8.48
FIC 5 4.31 36 8.22 41 7.40
OTJT 6 5.17 26 5.94 32 5.78
Table IV.
The most effective
method by level of
education
Secondary school Graduate Master PhD Other
OTJT 18 98 108 35 12
FIC 12 46 50 17 3
NetS 2 18 25 6 3
Lect 3 17 20 5 3
OL 4 12 10 3 0
ICC 1 9 11 1 2
EJTD
41,4
362

Method’s effectiveness
Aiming to determine effectiveness of each of the proposed TDM, participants were asked to
rate the six methods individually. Table VII presents the statistical results obtained. OTJT
(M ⫽4.17, SD ⫽0.98) obtained the highest ranking, followed by FIC (M ⫽3.90, SD ⫽0.96)
and by Lect (M ⫽3.39, SD ⫽1.00). The least ranked method was OL (M ⫽3.09, SD ⫽1.00).
TDMs ranking
The respondents were also requested to rank the top three delivery methods. OTJT was the
stand out required method followed by FIC (Table VIII).
Table V.
The most effective
TDM by hierarchical
position
Consultant Administrative
Technical or
management staff Director Member of the board Other
OTJT 26 40 70 75 23 37
FIC 15 14 34 40 9 16
NetS 9 3 14 12 5 8
Lect 6 6 16 12 3 5
OL 4 4 7 8 2 6
ICC 2 1 8 8 1 5
Table VI.
Chi-Square test
between “hierarchical
position” and “TDM”
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13,389
a
25 0.971
Likelihood Ratio 13,913 25 0.963
Linear-by-Linear Association 082 1 0.775
N of Valid Cases 554
Note:
a
10 cells (27.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.94
Table VII.
Method’s effectiveness
Female (N⫽116) Male (N⫽438) Total (N⫽554)
M SD M SD M SD
OTJT 4.14 1.12 4.17 0.95 4.17 0.98
FIC 3.90 1.05 3.91 0.93 3.90 0.96
OL 3.17 1.06 3.07 0.99 3.09 1.00
ICC 3.30 1.07 3.20 0.99 3.22 1.00
Lect 3.48 1.03 3.37 0.99 3.39 1.00
NetS 3.47 1.12 3.40 0.98 3.42 1.00
Table VIII.
Methods ranking
Female (N⫽116) Male (N⫽438) Total (N⫽554)
OTJT 231 887 1118
FIC 122 722 844
OL 94 305 399
ICC 93 291 384
Lect 83 213 296
NetS 51 144 195
363
Training
delivery
methods

Gender differences
To evaluate gender differences, several independent t-tests were conducted (Table IX).
Differences obtained were not statistically signicant. Because the t-values’ generality was
signicant across the experience and effectiveness dimensions, there are no signicant
gender differences in the present research.
Correlations
Spearman’s rank correlation coefcients were calculated to measure the connection between
the items that belong to TDM effectiveness. Table X showed signicant (p⬍0.01) relations
between almost every TDM dimension, except for the relation between OTJT and OL (p⬍
0.05).
Signicant correlations levels were obtained between OTJT/FIC, OL/ICC, ICC/Lect, ICC/
NetS and Lect/NetS. These correlations indicate a connection between OTJT and FIC, which
may be related with their similarity in practical terms; the general presence for a trainer in the
room as derived from most correlations; the low correlation between OL and the other TDMs,
suggesting that participants did not associate, or do not know, OL in the modality of
“blended learning” or even that OL is not offered through virtual classes, promoting the
development of learning communities, that should contribute to overcome some pitfalls of
pure OL, as the isolation of trainees and discussion among peers regarding training issues.
Moreover, this less preference of OL may also be related with cultural issues, not addressed
in this study.
Table IX.
Gender differences
Female
(N⫽116) Male (N⫽438)
Levene (p-value) t-teste (p-value)MSDMSD
OTJT 4.14 1.12 4.17 0.95 0.029 0.829
FIC 3.90 1.05 3.91 0.93 0.031 0.894
OL 3.17 1.06 3.07 0.99 0.236 0.320
ICC 3.30 1.07 3.20 0.99 0.208 0.336
Lect 3.48 1.03 3.37 0.99 0.533 0.269
NetS 3.47 1.12 3.40 0.98 0.081 0.560
Table X.
Correlations among
the variables
(N⫽554)
TDM1 TDM2 TDM3 TDM4 TDM5 TDM6
TDM1 Correlation Coefcient 1,000 0.398** 0.109* 0.172** 0.173** 0.195**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000
TDM2 Correlation Coefcient 1,000 0.122** 0.146** 0.190** 0.177**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000
TDM3 Correlation Coefcient 1,000 0.347** 0.284** 0.234**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
TDM4 Correlation Coefcient 1,000 0.652** 0.443**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
TDM5 Correlation Coefcient 1,000 0.551**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
TDM6 Correlation Coefcient 1,000
Sig. (2-tailed)
Notes: ** Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed)
EJTD
41,4
364

Discussion
This paper is based on the RBV of the rm (Penrose, 1959;Wernerfelt, 1984;Barney, 1991),
according to which the long-term competitiveness of a rm is dened by its capacity to
sustainably promote VRIO. A lot of authors introduced and discuss DC (Barney, 1986,1991;
Nelson, 1991;Amit and Schoemaker, 1993;Teece and Pisano, 1994;Teece et al., 1997;Winter,
2003), and the way they affect organisational performance (Barreto, 2010). However, even if
it seems that there is a consensus that DC should be built within the organisation (Teece,
2007, 2014), the question to answer remains where they come from (Zollo and Winter, 2002),
or what managers can effectively do to promote them.
This work considers that training is a source of domain-specic sustainable DC (Winter,
2003), and analyses TDM’s preferences of non-athletic staff of SO regarding support to their
training and development. Our endeavour was driven by the known differences between
TDMs’ effectiveness, for a specic group of trainees, tasks or training contents (Arthur et al.,
2003) and so, the fact that it is a manager’s choice to decide what TDM will best develop their
organisational skills and so, develop their business.
Organisations live a permanent transfer between higher order generic DC, focused on
learning and creativity, and lower order domain-specic DC, more related with the exible
execution of dened tasks (Hine et al., 2014; Schike, 2014). Training acquired is transformed
into knowledge and reinforces strategic capabilities. But that depends on the TDM used. In
this sense, TDMs are considered as a source of DC and may be regarded as the vehicle of this
transfer, that is, it is embedded on the nature of DC, rather than on their results.
Other important factors that appear to be particularly important for this knowledge
transfer, besides TDM, but related with their choice, are content validity for the training, and
the training execution (Arraya, 2014). Moreover, besides formal knowledge (assumed to be
owned by each person), it must be considered that learning and development of workforce is
always dependent on organisational issues, including implicit knowledge and basically the
one derived from observation, imitation, repeated engagement and practice/training, until it
becomes explicit (Billett and Choy, 2013;Marchand, 2008). These features apply and are
developed mainly through OTJT, which also promotes essential/vital knowledge and skills’
exchange, thereby enhancing individuals’ learning and development (Tynjälä, 2008) and
assuring a better level of transfer of training outcomes to job.
Our most relevant result has to do with the fact that 48.92 per cent of respondents consider
OTJT to be the most effective TDM when asked to choose just one method. OTJT is
simultaneously the TDM with the highest ranking for effectiveness when compared to each
of the other TDMs. This preference may have to do with the fact that:
• OTJT is a behavioural method that allows trainees to practice their behaviour in a real
situation, which is great to develop skills and change attitudes (Woods, 1995);
• trainees want to be in charge of their own learning pace and get information when they
need it (Baldwin-Evans, 2007);
• they appreciate the interaction and working under the guidance of competent
colleagues/workers, watching them do the job and applying the training in a real
context (Tynjälä, 2008); and
• the fact that OTJT helps in solving specic problems, working as a tactical approach
that addresses specic and special needs (Jayawarna et al., 2007).
The combinations of implicit knowledge, social interactions and workers’ skills, create
organisational processes and routines that promote the core competencies of the
organisation. Organisations will benet because these core competencies are not easy to
365
Training
delivery
methods

codify. Hence, other organisations cannot easily imitate them, transforming this in an
effective source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991;Markova, 2012;Ravichandran and
Lertwongsatien, 2005).
Our results also show that informal learning can be a good delivery method
(Baldwin-Evans, 2007). However, as Noe (2008) stated, a single TDM may not be enough to
achieve all training goals. Managers must examine the objectives, the prole and needs of the
audience, to choose an effective TDM.
According to the results obtained, OL seems not to be an effective TDM, whereas some
trainees emphasize some scepticism towards OL effectiveness (Long et al., 2008). This
contradicts many recent studies (Charlier et al., 2015;London and Hall, 2011) concerning
e-learning’s importance and utility and, besides possible cultural aspects, it may be also
because of not so good trial OL experiences, especially those not developing virtual classes
and learning communities.
In spite of these particular results, it is important to notice that all six methods were rated
as effective for learning receiving a score of 3 or higher (in a Likert scale from 1 to 5).
It is also worth mentioning that answers show that there were no signicant differences
between genders, hierarchical position or even education level, regarding the preferences to
or the classication of TDMs.
The present and future of all kinds of organisations are tied to their capacity to develop
sustainable DC. Investment in workers and consequently in continuously improving
training, is a crucial issue in this regard because some factors that contribute to
organisational performance, and thus to the overall organisation’s performance, such as
skills, capacities, competence and behavioural building, are directly related to HR training/
learning (Arraya, 2014;Sahinidis and Bouris, 2008;Tai, 2006). This is particularly true when
they are connected to the workers’ motivation, commitment and job satisfaction as well as
perceived training effectiveness.
Moreover, with regard to the organizational implications of this area of study, future
research may link the most effective TDM with specic needs for skills or tasks, with an eye
to identify the features of each method when compared to content-specic training. Future
research is also needed to include/develop the concept of blended learning and self-training
methods.
Moreover, this study is limited to the context of sports industry and to the six TDMs
considered here (although they may be considered representative of most kinds of TDMs).
So, ndings cannot be easily generalized to other industries and to other TDMs. In addition
to this, the sample size is mainly from Europe (62 per cent). We believe that a greater
statistical validity can be achieved with a higher homogeneity of participants, both by
continent and by industry.
Finally, this study adopted a cross-sectional survey. However, preferences, relationships
and correlations develop over time. Thus, any survey/data should be longitudinal in nature.
Conclusion
SO survive both in very competitive and highly adaptive environments. In such
environments, DC assumes a very important role and training is a natural answer to provide
HR with the most adequate tools to deal with such type of environments. The choice of the
best TDM here assumes a crucial role, because it is at the origin of crucial sustainable DC for
these organizations.
The construct of DC shows the importance of a workforce that can develop new skills,
abilities and competencies to perform new tasks and jobs in a permanently changing
scenario, thus providing sources for competitive advantage.
EJTD
41,4
366

The adequate TDMs show the potential to promote VRIO resources as supported by RBV
theory, contributing to organisational performance and competitive advantage.
This study indicates that OTJT can be considered as a cost effective TDM that
encourages participation, engagement, opportunity to practice, timely feedback on the
trainee’s performance and positive transfer of knowledge from training to job. OTJT is
structured from simple to complex tasks, adaptable to specic problems (Woods, 1995) and
creates value and development. So, OTJT is considered a delivery method that meets the
expectations of the workforce and disseminates inimitable knowledge that can be useful for
workers and the organisation’s life, thus being an important source of DC for SO.
An effective TDM is the one that promotes the ability to transform domain-specic DC
derived from training, into generic DC. Transforming occasional know-how into permanent
knowledge, it must propel the capacity for change transforming it into a crucial source of DC.
We showed that this TDM and respective training programmes, are very specic and
show a potential to transform workforce in talented and competent resources of SO. In
general, it is difcult for competitors to imitate training methods, but this seems especially
true in the case of “learning-by-doing” processes such as OTJT.
We showed that TDMs are able to create DC if they can promote the capacity of resources
to meet and create market change. This happens when managers are able to realize that the
organisation’s context, size and type of business/industry can make a difference, and if
TDMs promote real organisational change. However, it is important to emphasize that a
TDM is just one element of the training programme; it does not work by itself and must be
permanently evaluated.
References
Adcroft, A. and Teckman, J. (2009), “Taking sport seriously”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 5-13.
Aguinis, H. and Kraiger, K. (2009), “Benets of training and development for individuals and teams,
organisations, and society”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 451-474.
AL-Ajlouni, M.M., Athamneh, S.M.H. and Jaradat, A.A. (2010), “Methods of evaluation: training
techniques”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 37, pp. 56-65.
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009), “What are DC and are they a useful construct in strategic
management?”, International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Amirvany, N., Huysman, M., de Man, A.P. and Cloodt, M. (2012), “Acquisition reconguration
capability”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 177-191.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Andersén, J. (2007), “A holistic approach to acquisition of strategic resources”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 660-677.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Why High-Performance Systems Pay Off,
ILR Press, New York, NY.
Arraya, M. (2006), O Balanced Scorecard no Desenvolvimento das Competências do Dirigente
Desportivo, Tese de Mestrado em Gestão do Desporto, Faculdade de Motricidade
Humana/Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.
Arraya, M. (2014), “O efeito da alostasia nas organizações e no desempenho: o caso das organizações
desportivas”, Revista Intercontinental Gestão Desportiva, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-70.
Arthur, W. Jr, Bennett, W. Jr, Edens, P.S. and Bell, S.T. (2003), “Effectiveness of training in
organisations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 234-245.
367
Training
delivery
methods

Baldwin-Evans, K. (2007), “The future of organisational learning”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 299-306.
Barney, J.B. (1986), “Types of competition and the theory of strategy: toward an integrative framework”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 791-800.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Resource based theories of competitive advantage: a ten year retrospective on the
resource based view”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 643-650.
Barreto, I. (2010), “DC: a review of past research and an agenda for the future”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 256-280.
Berri, D.J. and Schmidt, M.B. (2006), “On the road with the national basketball association’s superstar
externality”, Journal of Sports Economics, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 347-358.
Billett, S. and Choy, S. (2013), “Learning through work: emerging perspectives and new challenges”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 264-276.
Borresen, J. and Lambert, M.I. (2009), “The quantication of training load, the training response and the
effect on performance”, Sports Medicine, Vol. 39, pp. 779-795.
Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L. and Sein, M.K. (1988), “End user computing a framework to investigate the
training/learning process”, in Carey, J.M. (Ed.), Human Factors in Management Information
Systems, Ablex Publishing Corportion, Norwood, NJ, pp. 221-250.
Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L. and Sein, M.K. (1999), “The importance of learning style in end-user training”,
MIS Quaterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 101-119.
Charlier, S.D., Guay, R.P. and Zimmerman, R.D. (2015), “Plugged in or disconnected? A model of the
effects of technological factors on employee job embeddedness”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 109-126.
Choi, D.H., Kim, J. and Kim, S.H. (2007), “ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: the
ow theory perspective”, Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 223-243.
Coff, R. (1997), “Human assets and management dilemmas coping with hazards on the road to
resource-based theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 374-402.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006), “How much do high-performance work practices
matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organisational performance”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 59, pp. 501-528.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “What is coefcient alpha? An examination of theory and applications”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 98-104.
Coulson, T., Shayo, C., L, O. and Rohm, T. (2003), “ERP traning strategies: conceptual training and the
formation of accurate mental models”, SIGMIS Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Denby, S. (2010), “The importance of training needs analysis”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 147-150.
DeSimone, R., Hornsby, J., Dowling, P. and Hall, M. (2003), Training Systems Management,
South-Western College Publishing, Mason, OH.
Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M.A and Peteraf, M.A. (2009), “DC: current debates and future directions”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. S1, pp. 1-8.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “DC: what are they?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21
Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-1121.
Ervin, K.S. and Hogan, R.L. (2013), “Utilized TDMs as reported by Illinois ASTD members”,
International journal of Science Commerce and Humanities, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 279-290.
Esteves, J., Pastor, J. and Casanovas, J. (2002), “A framework proposal for monitoring and evaluating
training in ERP implementation projects”, European Conference on Information Technology
Evaluation, (ECITE), Paris, July.
EJTD
41,4
368

Forteza de la Rosa, A. and Farto, H. (2007), Treinamento Desportivo: Do Ortodoxo ao Contemporâneo,
São Paulo, Phorte.
Foster, C. (1998), “Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome”, Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. 30 No. 116, pp. 4-8.
Gerzon, J., Heuer, B., Kibbee, K., Eileen, N. and Veal, L. (2006), MIT TDMs Survey Report, Developed and
published by the Training Alignment Team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
available at: http://web.mit.edu/training/trainers/tdmreport.pdf (accessed November 2013).
Goldstein, I.L. (1993), Training in Organisations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, 3rd
ed., Brooks-Cole Publisher, Pacic Grove, CA.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Greer, C.R., Carr, J.C. and Hipp, L. (2015), “Strategic stafng and small-rm performance”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Grossman, R. and Salas, E. (2011), “The transfer of training: what really matters”, International Journal
of Training and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 103-120.
Gwebu, K.L. and Wang, J. (2007), “The role of organisational, environmental and human factors in
e-learning diffusion”, International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 59-78.
Hatch, W.N. and Dyer, H.J. (2004), “Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1155-1178.
Jayawarna, D., Macpherson, A. and Wilson, A. (2007), “Training commitment and performance in
manufacturing SMEs: incidence, intensity and approaches”, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 321-338.
Kahn, L.M. (2000), “The sports business as a labor market laboratory”, The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 75-94.
Kale, V. (2000), Implementing SAP R/3: The Guide for Business and Technology Managers, Sams
Publishing.
Kaplan-Mor, N., Glezer, C. and Zviran, M. (2011), “A comparative analysis of end-user training
methods”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Kim, S. (2007), “Learning goal orientation, formal mentoring, and leadership competence in HRD: a
conceptual model”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 181-194.
Kuijer, T. (2007), “Human capital investment, training and recruitment in Dutch football”, Master
dissertation, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Maastricht.
Leinwand, P. and Mainardi, C. (2010), “The coherence premium”, Harvard Business Review, June,
pp. 86-92.
London, M. and Hall, M. (2011), “Unlocking the value of Web 2.0 technologies for training and
development: the shift from instructor-controlled, adaptive learning to learner-driven, generative
learning”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 50, pp. 757-775.
Long, L.I.K., DuBois, C.Z. and Faley, R.H. (2008), “Online training: the value of capturing trainee
reactions”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
McGrath, R.G. (2013), The End of Competitive Advantage: How to Keep Your Strategy Moving as Fast
as Your Business, Harvard Business Review Publishing, Boston, MA.
Makadok, R. (2001), “Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent
creation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 387-402.
Mallett, C.J., Trudel, P., Lyle, J. and Rynne, S.B. (2009), “Formal vs. informal coach education”,
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 359-364.
Marchand, T.H.J. (2008), “Muscles, morals and mind: craft apprenticeship and the formation of person”,
British Journal of Education Studies, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 245-271.
369
Training
delivery
methods

Markova, G. (2012), “Building DC: the case of HRIS”, Management Research: The Journal of the IBERO
American Academy of Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 81-98.
Matens, J. (2005), “How to develop the best training initiatives”, HR Focus, Business Source Elite
database (accessed 15 November 2013).
Nelson, R. (1991), “Why do rms differ, and how does it matter?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12
No. 8, pp. 61-74.
Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. and Bereri, E. (2009), “Trainee perceptions of training transfer: an empirical
analysis”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 255-270.
Noe, R.A. (2008), Employee Training and Development, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P.M. (2006), “Human resource management”,
Gaining A Competitive Advantage, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Ott, R.L. (1993), An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 4th ed., Duxbury Press,
Belmont, CA.
Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New York, NY.
Pineda, P. (2010), “Evaluation of training in organisations: a proposal for an integrated model”, Journal
of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 673-693.
Ployhart, R.E. (2006), “Stafng in the 21st century: new challenges and strategic opportunities”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 868-897.
Ravichandran, T. and Lertwongsatien, C. (2005), “Effect of information systems resources and
capabilities on rm performance: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 237-276.
Ron, Z. and Kramlinger, T. (1982), Figuring Things Out: A Trainer’s Guide to Needs and Task Analysis,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Sahinidis, A.G. and Bouris, J. (2008), “Employee perceived training effectiveness relationship to
employee attitudes”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D.C. and Jones, J.R. (1998), “Organisation and occupation inuences in the
attraction–selection–attrition process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 869-891.
Schilke, O. (2014), “Second-order dynamic capabilities: how do they matter?”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 368-380.
Simon, A. (2010), “Resources, DC and Australian business success”, Journal of Global Business and
Technology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 12-31.
Smith, A. (2000), “Industry training in australia: causes and consequences, in learning together: working
together”, Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Post-compulsory Education
and Training, Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Vol. 1, pp. 55-67.
Soriano, F. (2011), Goal: The Ball Doesn’t Go In By Chance: Management Ideas from the World of
Football, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Staudt, E., Bestel, S. and Mühlemeyer, P. (1993), Weiterbildungshandbuch – ein Handbuch für das
Management von Weiterbildungsprozessen im Betrieb, IAI, Bochum.
Sumner, M. (1999), “Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systems
projects”, presented at Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee.
Tai, W.T. (2006), “Effects of training framing general self-efcacy and training motivation on trainees’
training effectiveness”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating DC: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of rms: an introduction”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 537-556.
EJTD
41,4
370

Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “DC and strategic management”, Strategic Management
Journal (1986-1998), Vol. 18 No. 7, 509.
Tynjälä, P. (2008), “Perspectives into learning at the workplace”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 3,
pp. 130-154.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the rm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5,
pp. 171-180.
Wexley, K.N. and Latham, G.P. (2002), Developing and Training Human Resources in Organisations,
3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Winand, M., Zintz, T., Bayle, E. and Robinson, L. (2010), “Organizational performance of Olympic sport
governing bodies: dealing with measurement and priorities”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 15,
pp. 279-307.
Winter, S.G. (2003), “Understanding DC”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 991-995.
Woods, R. (1995), Human Resources Management, AHMA, MI.
Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2009), “How strategic orientations inuence the building of DC in emerging
economies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 224-231.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.
Further reading
Athanasios, T. (2012), Jose Mourinho’s Real Madrid – A Tactical Analysis: Attacking & Defending,
SoccerTutor.com Ltd, London.
Barney, J.B. and Wright, P.M. (1998), “On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in
gaining competitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. (1955), “Construct validity in psychological tests”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 52, pp. 281-302.
Danziger, J. and Dunkle, D. (2005), Methods of Training in the Workplace, Center for Research on
Information Technology and Organisations, School of Social Sciences University of California,
Irvine, CA.
Giangreco, A., Carugati, A. and Sebastiano, A. (2010), “Are we doing the right thing? Food for thought
on training evaluation and its context”, Personnel Review, Vol. 39, pp. 162-177.
Grohmann, A. and Kauffeld, S. (2013), “Evaluating training programs: devel-opment and correlates of
the questionnaire for professional training evaluation”, International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 135-155.
Hargreaves, A. and Bate, D. (2009), “Skills and strategies for coaching Soccer”, Human Kinetics, 2nd ed.,
London.
Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A. and Ruona, W.E.A. (2000), “Development of a generalized learning transfer
system inventory”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 333-360.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Sirmon, D.G. (2003), “A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct
and its dimensions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 963-989.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
Laird, D. (1985), Approaches to Training and Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Levene, H. (1960), Robust Tests for Equality of Variances, in Contributions to Probability and Statistics,
1 ed., Stanford University Press, Olkin, Palo Alto, CA.
Martin, A. (1999), “Employee training and development: the success of your business depends upon it”,
available at: www.lgt-cpa.com/resources/articles/TrainingTrends (accessed 20 November 2013).
McKelvie, A. and Davidsson, P. (2009), “From resource base to DC: an investigation of a new rm”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. S63-S80.
371
Training
delivery
methods

O’Reilly, C.A. III and Tushman, M. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a DC: resolving the innovator’s dilemma”,
Research in Organisational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206.
O’Toole, J. and Lawler, E.E. (2006), The New American Workplace, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Pennings, J.M., Lee, K. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998), “Human capital, social capital, and rm
dissolution”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 425-440.
Scott, S.G. (2010), “Factors impacting the selection of training-delivery systems and training
methodology of Virginia training professionals”, Doctoral dissertation submitted to the faculty
of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Sherer, P.D. (1995), “Leveraging human assets in law rms: human capital structure and organisational
capabilities”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 48, pp. 671-691.
Tabassi, A.A. and Bakar, A.H.A. (2009), “Training, motivation, and performance: the case of human
resource management in construction projects in Mashhad”, International Journal or Project
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 471-480.
Tannenbaum, S.I. and Yukl, G. (1992), “Training and development in work organisations”, Annual
Reviews Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 399-441.
Taylor, T., Doherty, A. and McGraw, P. (2008), Managing People in Sport Organisations: A Strategic
Human Resource Management Perspective, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Teodorescu, L. (2003), Problemas de Teoria E Metodologia Nos Jogos Desportivos, 2 ed., Livros
Horizonte, Lisboa.
Thom, N. and Blunck, T. (1992), “Strategisches weiterbildungs- controlling (‘Controlling strategic
training’)”, in von Landsberg, G. and Weiss, R. (Eds), Bildungs Controlling, Schäffer Poeschel,
Stuttgart.
About the authors
Marco António Mexia Arraya is a manager and consultant in health sector and sports
organizations. He holds a PhD in Strategic Management (Universidade Aberta, Portugal), and
holds a Master of Administration (University of South Africa) and a Master in Sports Management
(Universidade Técnica de Lisboa / FMH, Portugal), and a degree in Marketing Administration from
the IPAM, Portugal. His research interests are in business management practices, dynamic
capabilities, resource based view, learning organisation and KPI. He is Handball Master Coach
(Rink convention). Marco António Mexia Arraya is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
marco.arraya@marcoarraya.com
José António Porfírio holds a PhD in Management (specialization in Strategy), since 2005, at
Universidade Aberta, a degree in Management (1990) and a Master in Mathematics Applied to
Economics and Management (1993), both in Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão (ISEG) of the
University of Lisbon. Presently he is doing research in the elds of Corporate Strategy,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, with several works published in reference journals and
participation in many conferences throughout Europe in these domains. He is the Pro-Rector of
Universidade Aberta for Project Management, Research and Development, and Professor for Strategic
Management at this University where he was the Director of Social Sciences and Management
Department from January 2009 until January 2013. José is the Coordinator of the Master in
Management/MBA Program for Angola, and Vice-Coordinator of the overall Master in Management of
Universidade Aberta; José Porfírio as experience as coordinator of several European projects in the
domains of Entrepreneurship and Social Inclusion and a long experience as a consultant for several
companies in Portugal, and for the UNCTAD TrainForTrade Program of the United Nations in Geneva
where he worked as a consultant on distance-learning and foreign trade for several years.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
EJTD
41,4
372