The relationship between training outsourcing and employee commitment to organization

Human Resource Development International, 2014
Vol. 17, No. 2, 145–163, />
The relationship between training outsourcing and employee
commitment to organization
Sanghamitra Chaudhuria* and Kenneth R. Bartlettb
a
Training Administration, State of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA; bDepartment of Organizational
Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

(Received 5 March 2013; accepted 30 December 2013)
In many countries, the human resource practice of training outsourcing has emerged as
one of the fastest growing segments of the broader business process outsourcing
industry. In spite of the growing popularity in professional practice, training outsourcing continues to be subjected to critical review and ongoing debate with most
attention focused on the decision to ‘outsource’ or ‘not to outsource’. However,
there exists a shortage of research on training outsourcing as a human resource
development (HRD) practice and the potential relationships with desired organizational
outcomes including employee commitment. This exploratory international study
extends previous research that has examined the relationship between training and
organizational commitment by focusing exclusively on outsourced training. Data were
collected from information technology firms in two countries: India and the United
States. Results showed positive relationships between specific measures of employee
perceptions of quality, usefulness and supervisor support for outsourced training with
organizational commitment. Recommendations are made for future research as well as
for professional practice to guide HRD practitioners involved in the rapidly growing
global practice of training outsourcing.
Keywords: human resource development; training outsourcing; organizational commitment; employee attitudes; social exchange theory

Over the past two decades a number of global environmental shifts have resulted in the
emergence of several new human resource (HR) practices within organizations operating
internationally. Numerous previous studies have shown that HR practices and specifically
human resource development (HRD) influence organizational performance both directly

and indirectly through individual work-related attitudes, such as commitment, motivation
and satisfaction (Guest 1997, 1999; Huselid 1995; Joo and Shim 2010; Kooij et al. 2010).
In order to remain competitive organizations need to adopt HR practices that continue to
foster performance. There is a constant need to develop and implement improved HR
practices with a corresponding imperative for research to understand the relationship of
these practices on desired organizational outcomes. This is even more pressing for
international organizations in the dynamic information technology (IT) industry where
the rate and impact of change, pressures for performance and the need for heavy investment in HRD are noted (Kuo et al. 2010; Kuruvilla and Ranganathan 2010). Kooij et al.
(2010) suggested that high commitment HR practices, including training and development, aim to elicit a strong bond of attachment to the organization, leading to improved
job performance and other positive outcomes. Training is often singled out as one of the
*Corresponding author. Email:
© 2014 Taylor & Francis


146

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

most important investments for enhancing intellectual capital vital for the organization’s
competitive sustainability (Bulut and Culha 2010). The benefits of training are not limited
to improved performance with other advantages such as empowerment, self-efficacy,
effectiveness and profitability confirmed by research (Aguinis and Kraiger 2009).
In more recent years organizations have sought to confirm if desired outcomes result
from the adoption of new approaches to the management and development of HRs. One
practice drawing a great deal of attention from HR scholars and practitioners is outsourcing. In simple terms, Perry (1997) defined outsourcing as turning over to another
organization’s employees to carry out tasks previously performed by one’s own employees. Feeney, Lacity, and Wilcox (2005) suggested that outsourcing has now become a
megatrend in many industries.
Organizations have outsourced core and non-core human resource management
(HRM) and HRD activities (Babcock 2004; Greer, Youngblood, and Gray 1999), although
this has been more recent compared to the outsourcing of IT, sales and marketing, and

facility operation and maintenance. The primary reason stated for this later adoption was
that HR was often considered too sensitive to be outsourced (Shen 2005). Cook (1999)
defined outsourcing of HR activity as ‘having a third-party service provider or vendor
furnish, on an ongoing basis, the administration of an HR activity that would normally be
performed in-house’ (4). Research has shown that 93% of HR departments outsourced at
least some of their work (Greer, Youngblood, and Gray 1999; Gurchiek 2005). Although
more contemporary research has found that many ongoing outsourcing contacts are
discontinued with either the selection of a different vendor or bringing the work backin-house, referred to as back sourcing (Whitten, Chakrabarty, and Wakefield 2010).
Training and development is a HR functional area in which outsourcing is prevalent
(Anderson 2008; Bassi, Cheney, and Van Buren 1997; Chiang, Chow, and Birtch 2010);
yet, there are few studies related to outcomes of HRD outsourcing.
Training and development outsourcing has been viewed as an effective management
strategy, especially in organizations operating in highly competitive international business
environments. Although evidence has suggested that the amount of training and development outsourcing may be increasing (Babcock 2004), there is considerable variation in
how firms have utilized this HR practice (Csoko 1995). While some firms have achieved
positive outcomes from outsourcing training, others report that they failed miserably
(Baker 1996). Shih and Chiang (2011) recently concluded that scholars appear to hold
differing opinions of the effects of training outsourcing.
Two competing perspectives dominate existing studies on training outsourcing. The
first view considers training outsourcing as a value-creating activity that may bring cost
savings and operational flexibility (Cooke, Shen, and McBride 2005; Klass, Mc Clendon,
and Gainey 2001), whereas the second perspective believes that some training activities
should not be outsourced as it leads to declining innovation (Kotabe 1992) and reduced
performance (Gilley and Rasheed 2000). Ongoing debate over the most appropriate
perspective to explain training outsourcing and inconclusive research findings may result
in ineffective outsourced HRD practices.
Research has focused on making the right outsourcing decisions (Sanders et al. 2007)
in order for the relationship between the organization and the vendor to continue.
Simmonds and Gibson (2008) provided a four-step outsourcing framework to ensure
success by making the right decision in terms of what to outsource (prioritize), engaging

the right providers (select) and putting measures in place to build (trust) and maintain a
strong, trusting, effective relationship (monitor). The importance of trust has specifically
gained much attention for maintaining and managing relationship between the suppliers


Human Resource Development International

147

and the parent organization (Gainey and Klass 2005; Leimbach 2005) in order for the
relationship to continue.
An additional and often overlooked area of debate in the literature relates to perceptions towards outsourced training. Employers appear to have diverse and perhaps conflicting opinions regarding the benefits of in-house and outsourced training. There is
evidence that employers increasingly perceive that the use of outside service providers is
more efficient and less expensive than maintaining a full-service in-house training and
development facility and programme (Galanaki and Papalexandris 2007). Furthermore,
some employers believe that outsourced training providers have knowledge and competencies that may not exist in-house (Galanaki and Papalexandris 2007). However, the
perception of employees towards outsourced training has received little research.
From the employee perspective, training outsourcing may be viewed as a change in
strategy and process for learning and development activities that may lead to considerable
shifts in work processes, control and organizational design (Lever 2002), which in turn
can potentially impact employee attitudes. Stroh and Treehuboff (2003) suggested that
outsourcing, regardless if considered successful or failed, can have a considerable influence on employee morale. Some have argued that outsourcing does not nurture employee
engagement with reduced feelings of belongingness towards the organization often the
result (Punia and Sharma 2008). Therefore, if organizations want to utilize training
outsourcing effectively, a greater understanding is needed on the potential influence it
may have on employee attitudes. Previous research has highlighted that individual workrelated outcomes are impacted by employee perceptions of HR practices, and these may
differ significantly from managerial perceptions (Guest 1999; Huselid 1995). This study
investigated the outcomes of training outsourcing as perceived by employees, and more
specifically how training outsourcing may be related to employee attitudes, particularly
organizational commitment.

Research on organizational commitment has attracted significant attention in the past
five decades. International interest in organizational commitment has increased as a result
of globalization, greater cultural diversity in the workplace, and as more is understood of
the relationship with various measures of performance (Kamarul and Raida 2003; Meyer
et al. 2012; Riketta 2002). A paradox unfolding within today’s global workforce has been
noted in that organizations increasingly rely on committed employees while they simultaneously introduce many changes that have the potential to reduce commitment levels
(Meyer and Parfyonova 2010). Examples of organizational change strategies are often
related to reduced commitment, including downsizing, restructuring, mergers and acquisitions and outsourcing (Dierendonck and Jacobs 2012; Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall
2002).
The study of commitment aims to understand the multiple forms of psychological
attachments or bonds that individuals develop in the workplace (Klein, Molloy, and
Brinsfield 2012). Organizational commitment describes the various types of attachment
or psychological links that a worker may feel towards their employing organization (van
Knippenberg and Sleebos 2006). Perhaps the most significant advancement in the
definition and conceptualization of organizational commitment resulted from the work
of Meyer and Allen (1991). They viewed commitment as a ‘psychological state that
characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization, and its implications for
the decision to continue membership with the organization’ (67). They delineated the
construct into three dimensions of commitment: affective, continuance and normative;
although several have raised questions with the theoretical uniqueness of continuance
commitment resulting in numerous studies selecting only the affective and normative


148

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

dimension as the prime indicators of organizational commitment (Kuvaas 2006;
Solinger, van Olffen, and Roe 2008).
Previous research has shown that several aspects of training activity including access

to training, perceived benefits of training and organizational support for learning are
related to organizational commitment (Ahmed and Bakar 2003; Bartlett 2001; Bartlett
and Kang 2004; Bulut and Culha 2010; Ehrhardt et al. 2011). Perceived organizational
support towards training has also been found to be correlated positively with organizational commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro 1990; Shore and Wayne
1993). Furthermore, employees who received greater amounts of training relevant and
useful to their jobs perceived the work environment to be more supportive (Narayan and
Steele-Johnson 2007). Research conducted in international context has also supported a
relationship with HRD and organizational commitment. Joo and Shim (2010) reported in
their study on Korean employees that organizational learning culture has a significant
influence on employee commitment and their turnover intentions. Given a growing
concern on the desire for higher levels of employee commitment, a greater understanding
is also needed on employees’ perceptions of training outsourcing and the potential
relationship to organizational commitment that may exist between the frequency of
participation in outsourced training, quality of outsourced training, usefulness and relevance of outsourced training, customization of outsourced training and supervisory support towards outsourced training.
Problem statement
In the academic literature, training outsourcing has received little research attention with
most previous studies primarily concentrated on broadly examining the organizational
benefits and risks of HR outsourcing in general. The few studies on training outsourcing
have tended to focus on the relationship between firms and vendors (Gainey and Klass
2003, 2005). Since employees are always at the receiving end of outsourced training, it is
noteworthy that the employee perspective on the impact of outsourcing on employment
relations has usually been overlooked in existing studies (Kessler, Coyle-Shapiro, and
Purcell 1999).
While there is much rhetoric on the possible impact of training outsourcing on
workplace attitudes (Shih and Chiang 2011), there is a lack of research that explores
possible relationships between outsourced training and employee attitudes. Some who
advocate for training outsourcing highlight reduced costs, improved effectiveness and
efficiency in training delivery and corresponding benefits to employee satisfaction and
loyalty (Galanaki, Bourantas, and Papalexandris 2008). Conversely, others warn that
training outsourcing undermines core values and control of HRD, resulting in reduced

employee morale (Belcourt 2006; Cooke, Shen, and McBride 2005). This overall shortage
of research and conflicting conclusion on the nature of the relationship of outsourcing
training and workplace attitudes is problematic as organizations are confronted by divergent opinions and unsubstantiated claims on how employees perceive outsourcing of
training activities. Additionally, there is a very limited body of literature that looks into
the organizational commitment of software professionals (Paul and Anantharaman 2004).
This is concerning as the IT services sector is noted for high rates of turnover (Gupta
2001; Kuruvilla and Ranganathan 2010; Kuo et al. 2010). At the same time outsourcing of
training services within the IT sector is an organizational learning strategy often considered to provide employees with opportunities to upgrade their skills on a continuous basis
in order to adapt and adopt new technology (Paul and Anantharaman 2004). The IT


Human Resource Development International

149

industry and international firms that operate in this sector were therefore selected as an
appropriate context to examine the possible relationship between outsourced training and
employee commitment. The knowledge gained from this exploratory study could prove
useful for firms considering outsourcing of training functions and more specifically for
those organizations already engaged in outsourcing training to better understand how
employees perceive this practice.
Theoretical framework
Transaction cost economics (Williamson 1996) and the resource-based view of the firm
(Barney 1991) have traditionally been used as underlying theoretical perspectives to
explain outsourcing (e.g. Klass 2003; Klass, Mc Clendon, and Gainey 2001; Lever
2002). These theories have been most frequently used in prior research to explore the
initial outsourcing decision (Klass, Mc Clendon, and Gainey 1999, 2001; Lepak, Bartol,
and Gardner 2004). Transaction cost economics (Williamson 1996) conveys the idea
whether services or goods should be made internally or procured from outside based on
the relative costs of production and transaction, whereas resource-based view of the firm

(Barney 1991) offers the perspective that in order to remain competitive, resources
should be developed in-house. However, given the focus of this research on the postdecision implantation and the relationship between perceptions of training outsourcing
and organizational commitment, an alternative theoretical perspective was selected.
Social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and psychological contract theory (Rousseau
1990) are potentially more appropriate for examining employee attitudes in the context
of a changed employment contract resulting from the implementation of an outsourcing
HR strategy.
Many researchers have suggested that positive and beneficial actions by employers
result in the establishment of high-quality mutual exchange relationships, which, in turn,
obligate employees to reciprocate (Konovsky and Pugh 1994; Shore and Wayne 1993).
Conversely, a shift in the terms of the employment relationship by the employer is likely
to result in changed employee perceptions that may lead to a breach in the perceived
reciprocal relationship (Robinson 1996). In the most general terms, training outsourcing
means that an employer is hiring a third-party service provider or a vendor to deliver
training activities that would normally be provided in-house (Cook 1999). If the training
vendor provides excellent service, the employee may see this as an investment or
improvement in the quality of the employment relationship. Applying the lens of social
exchange theory suggests that outsourced training may increase employees’ level of
commitment towards an organization. By contrast, if the vendor fails in meeting employee
training expectations, the quality of the employment relationship may decline with
associated levels of lower commitment.
One additional aspect of social exchange that might theoretically relate to employee
commitment following training outsourcing occurs when the exchange relationship is
perceived to no longer be balanced. Tsui et al. (1997) identified this situation occurring
when high performance expectations are held by employers while they make minimal
investments in their employees. This may happen when firms hire specialized external
trainers from outside organizations to provide quality and relevant training which employees perceive as an investment in their development with subsequent reciprocated higher
levels of commitment. In contrast, when firms use outside vendors for all types of training
and fail to monitor the quality and relevance of outsourced training, employees may feel a
reduced level of commitment towards their organization. Moreover, the fact that training

150

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

is outsourced may result in increased or decreased frequency of training events which may
also influence levels of employee commitment.
Research questions and hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of employee perceptions
regarding outsourced training and the possible relationship with organizational commitment. The focus of this study was on the employees who participated in outsourced
training during the last one year. The overarching research question was: ‘is there a
relationship between outsourced training and employee organizational commitment?’
This was further refined into five research hypotheses.
Hypothesis development
For the purpose of this study it was necessary to consider key aspects of HRD participation that were most likely related to employee organizational commitment. The first
variable was frequency of participation in outsourced training. Participation in training
events is only possible when employees perceive that adequate opportunities for training
are available. Previous studies have shown that higher levels of HRD participation have a
strong to moderate relationship with different forms of commitment (Ahmed and Bakar
2003; Bartlett 2001; Newman, Thanacoody, and Hui 2011).
Applying the lens of social exchange theory, it can be argued that availability of
training can have considerable impact on employee commitment as it supports an
organizational climate of development. Higher levels of availability and participation in
training are likely to produce higher levels of organizational commitment from employees. Prior studies have measured availability of training by frequency of participation or
number of training programmes attended (Bartlett 2001; Tharenou 1997). Companies
provide or support participation in training to ensure that employees have the needed
skills and knowledge to perform. Previous research has consistently shown that
employees view firm-sponsored learning as an investment (Backes-Gellner and Tuor
2010 ) with a range of workplace attitudes linked to the overall perceptions of organizational awareness, support and provision of needed training and development for the

employees to perform their current job and enhance future career opportunities
(Chambel and Sobral 2011).
Based on existing literature and application of the reciprocal investment perspective
embedded in social exchange theory, it was thought that positive relationships between
outsourced training and affective and normative commitment would exist. Consequently
the following hypotheses were developed.
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between frequency of participation in
outsourced training and affective and normative commitment.
A wide variety of constructs related to training and development have been examined in
studies that have explored links between HRD and organizational commitment (Ahmed
and Bakar 2003; Bartlett 2001; Ehrhardt et al. 2011; Newman, Thanacoody, and Hui
2011). Since the key construct of interest for this study was outsourced training, only
those aspects of training most relevant to HRD provided by external vendors were
examined. Perceptions that employees may hold towards outsourced training were divided
into four operational measures including perceptions of the quality of outsourced training,


Human Resource Development International

151

usefulness and relevance of outsourced training, customization of outsourced training and
supervisory support towards outsourced training.
Galanaki, Bourantas, and Papalexandris (2008) found that the quality of outsourced
training was most affected by the overall availability of training services in the external
market. Shaw and Fairhurst (1997) reported that maintaining service quality in outsourced
training was one of the greatest problems encountered by client firms. Recent research
found that the relationship between training and organizational commitment can be
strengthened if employees perceive specific training activity as relevant and high quality
in nature (Ehrhardt et al. 2011). From an employee’s perspective, if the quality of training

provided by the outsourced vendor is high, the employee could perceive this as an
investment by the employer in securing the right vendor and, therefore, the employee
could be more committed to the organization. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
the quality of outsourced training and affective and normative commitment.
Previous studies have suggested that employees may have opposing views on the perceived usefulness and relevance of outsourced training (Cooke, Shen, and McBride 2005).
One possible scenario that could result is when employees perceive training to be less
relevant or useful if their organization is purchasing off-the-shelf training from external
vendors as compared to in-house-designed and delivered training. Alternatively, employees may perceive an external vendor as being able to provide the latest training materials
and delivery options that exceed the perceived usefulness and relevance of in-house
training. Therefore, if the outsourced training is highly relevant and useful, employees
may perceive this as an investment by the employer, and as a result they could be more
committed to the organization. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
usefulness and relevance of outsourced training and affective and normative
commitment.
The third aspect of training examined in this study was employees’ perceptions towards
customization of outsourced training. Customization of training reflects the degree to
which an external vendor makes an investment in time and money to deliver training to
meet the unique needs of each individual firm (Gainey and Klass 2003). If training is
adapted and individually tailored to meet the organization’s strategic learning needs and
culture, employees may feel greater commitment and have more motivation to participate
in training. In contrast, organizations should be cautious of overrelying on ‘off-the-shelf’
training solutions that may offer cost advantages but could fail to meet the specific
learning needs of the intended audience (Kaeter 1995; Sanders et al. 2007). Paul and
Anantharaman (2004) found that when customized learning and training opportunities
were made available for employees, it created a sense of attachment towards the organization. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
customization of outsourced training and affective and normative commitment.
The final aspect of training examined considered perceptions towards supervisory support

for outsourced training. Tracey and Tews (2005) defined supervisory support as the extent


152

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

to which supervisors encouraged training participation, knowledge acquisition and at the
same time provided ample recognition to employees involved in these activities. Previous
studies have shown supervisory support to be instrumental in fostering the transfer of
newly acquired knowledge and learned skills to workplace (Kozlowski and Huts 1987;
Nijman et al. 2004). Supervisory support towards training has also been found to have
significant relationships to a range of outcome variables (Noe and Wilk 1993) including
employee satisfaction with supervisors, improved commitment and reduced turnover
(Dawley, Andrews, and Bucklew 2008; Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro
1990). Outsourced training could be expensive for high-performing work environments
in dynamic industries and jobs, such as those in IT where external training may offer
access to cutting-edge knowledge on latest technologies and state-of-the-art HRD delivery
options. If the supervisor is invested and believes that outsourced training would enhance
job performance and career advancement, they may actively encourage employees to
attend training from external training providers. This could enhance the commitment of
employees who attend the training because of strong supportive supervisor and recognition that the best training may not be offered in-house. This suggests that supervisory
support could be an important feature for employee participation in outsourced training.
Therefore, the following hypothesis was examined.
Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between employee perceptions towards
supervisory support for outsourced training and affective and normative commitment.
Method and procedure
This section provides a description of the research methods for this study with details on
the sample, instrumentation and procedures for data analysis.
As training outsourcing was a key construct of interest in this study, the target

population only included those organizations engaged in outsourcing at least some of
their HRD training activities. Previous research has identified that outsourced training
activity occurs at higher levels in global firms, with the IT industry often noted as a heavy
user of external training vendors (Lacity, Khan, and Willcocks 2009; Niosi and Tschang
2009). Therefore, the decision was made to limit this study to global IT firms actively
engaged in training outsourcing. Personal contacts were used to identify firms meeting the
selection criteria and two organizations agreed to participate.
The first organization was a well-established firm and market leader in software
consulting based in the United States, and the second organization was a relatively
newer-established firm headquartered and operating primarily in India. The US-based
organization employed around 120,000 people worldwide, operated in 145 countries and
had over 370,000 customers, including all 100 firms listed on the Fortune 100. The
second organization was a software consulting firm based in India with approximately
1000 employees. Established in 1998, the organization was well-known for core competencies in the areas of e-governance and energy sector IT systems integration. Their major
customers include the multinational and local firms, government agencies in both India
and other nations, and non-governmental organizations operating throughout India and
other developing nations.
Both firms reported a variety of experiences with outsourcing training. Each firm
encouraged supervisors to use appropriate training options, including active participation
in learning provided by external training vendors for their direct reports. The US organization in our sample heavily utilized training provided by international outsourced


Human Resource Development International

153

training service firms, including many headquartered and operating in India. The Indian
organization in our sample also relied on outsourced training vendors, although all were
from India. The selection of firms using India to provide outsourced training reflects this
country being recognized as a favoured outsourcing destination for organizations from

across the world (Sharda and Chatterjee 2011). It is estimated that the outsourcing sector
has contributed employment for 2.5 million in India with the outsourcing industry
annually generating US$76 billion in revenue in recent years (NASSCOM 2011).
After agreement to participate in the study was received, a senior HRD professional at
each firm sent the electronic survey to those employees identified from internal HR
records as having received training from an outsourced vendor in the last one year. The
HR professionals confirmed that employees were aware that the training was external to
meet one of the requirements for the study. Of approximately 724 employees contacted
through email, a total of 246 completed, and usable surveys were received for a response
rate of 33.9%. The demographic variables indicated that the respondents were 67% male,
58% were between ages 25 and 34, and 39% had more than 10 years of total work
experience. In this sample, approximately 52.4% had a bachelor’s degree and 41.9% had a
master’s degree as their highest level of education. The majority (79.7%) of employees
worked in a junior-level position with 17% in middle-level positions. We did not find any
significant country difference for our dependent variable organizational commitment
between the employee groups. This maybe the result of the unique characteristics of the
sample population occupation with Prasad, Enns, and Ferratt (2007) suggesting that IT
employees are generally considered to be a homogenous group globally. Constantine
(1995) noted that the IT, and specifically, software professionals’ occupational subculture
can be stronger than any measure of national culture. The unique and strong occupational
culture for IT professional prompted Dafoulas and Macaulay (2001) to suggest that a
‘Russian programmer would be more similar to an American peer than to a Russian
marketing manager’ (6). The findings of this study aligns with our research where we did
not find any significant difference between the two groups in their commitment to
respective organizations as their commitment to the occupation supersedes any country
differences.
Measures
The self-administered questionnaire used for this study included measures of training
frequency along with previously developed scales. In addition to demographic items
the survey also gathered general training information including the number of outsourced training programmes attended. All the training outsourcing items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree), and the organizational commitment items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type
scale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Galanaki, Bourantas, and Papalexandris’ (2008) three-item quality benefit from
outsourced training scale was used to measure the quality of outsourced training. The
reliability measure of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) from data in the original
study was reported at 0.72 (Galanaki, Bourantas, and Papalexandris 2008). The reliability estimate from data in the current study produced a coefficient alpha of 0.62. While
below the generally agreed upon lower limit of 0.70, it is above the suggested minimum
reliabilities for exploratory research as suggested by Hair et al. (1998). Perceptions
regarding the usefulness and relevance of outsourced training were measured using six
items from Narayan and Steele-Johnson’s (2007) 20-item training attitude scale. An


154

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to test the factor structure of this sixitem subscale, and the results confirmed the suitability of a single factor. The reliability
estimate from data from the six-item scale was 0.90. Perceptions of the degree of
customization of outsourced training were measured using three items from Gainey
and Klass’ (2005) idiosyncratic training scale. The reliability estimate for this scale was
0.73. Organizational support for outsourced training was measured using 10 items
selected and slightly modified from the original 16-item scale. Noe and Wilk (1993)
perceived support from senior staff scale (α = 0.93). An EFA was conducted as no
reliability data were available for this modified 10-item version of the scale, and the
results confirmed the suitability of a single factor. Organizational commitment was
measured using the eight-item affective commitment subscale (ACS) and the six-item
normative commitment subscale (NCS) from Meyer and Allen (1997). The reliability
estimates from data for the affective and the normative domains were reported as 0.85
and 0.73, respectively, in the original study (Meyer and Allen 1997) and 0.90 and 0.75,
respectively, in the current study.

Data analysis
A three-stage hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to examine the effect of
each training outsourcing variable on the dependent variable, organizational commitment.
When conducting the hierarchical regression, all variables were standardized and entered
into the analysis in the order suggested by previous research. In the first step the
demographic variables, organization size (number of employees) and frequency of participation in company-provided training events were entered. The frequency of participation in company-provided training events was controlled because of the previously
established relationship with organizational commitment (Bartlett 2001).
In the second step, supervisory support to outsourced training was entered initially as
perceptions of organizational support are strongly related to organizational commitment
(Whitener 2001) followed by relevance and usefulness of training. It was predicted that
customization and quality of outsourced training would account for additional variance
over and above supervisory support and relevance and usefulness of outsourced training
with these variables entered in steps 3 and 4, respectively.
Results
The means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations between all variables are
presented in Table 1. The outcome variables including both affective and normative
commitment were negatively skewed; however, there was no sizeable skewness in the
distribution of the outcome variables, and the values were well within the range.
Regression analysis revealed that the residual diagnostic plots were normally distributed
for both affective and normative commitment.
Previous studies have not considered frequency of participation in outsourced training
events and the possible relationship with organizational commitment. The results showed
a significant relationship between normative commitment and frequency of participation
in outsourced training events (r = 0.14, p < 0.05), although no relationship with affective
commitment was found. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was partially supported.
The quality of outsourced training was moderately correlated with affective (r = 0.24)
and normative commitment (r = 0.19) at p <0.01 level and displayed a weak effect size.
The usefulness and relevance of outsourced training was moderately correlated with

Human Resource Development International
Table 1.

155

Correlation matrix for all variables.

Variables

Mean

SD

TR

COTR

OSTR

QT

RL

CT

SS

AC

TR

CO TR
OSTR
QT
RL
CT
SS
AC
NC

4.55
2.71
1.83
3.87
3.69
3.35
3.97
4.59
4.15

2.02
1.52
1.14
0.55
0.65
0.70
0.80
1.12
1.03

0.83**

0.66**
0.20**
0.13*
0.06
0.03
0.15*
0.18**

0.13
0.11
0.09
0.00
−0.04
0.15*
0.13*

0.20**
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.14*

0.55**
0.44**
0.13*
0.24**
0.19**

0.55**

0.19**
0.38**
0.27**

0.17**
0.29**
0.25**

0.40**
0.34**

0.75**

Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
TR = frequency of participation in total number of training, CO TR = frequency of participation in number of
company-provided training, OS TR = frequency of participation in number of outsourced training, QT = quality
of outsourced training, RL = usefulness and relevance of outsourced training, CT = customization of outsourced
training, SS = supervisory support towards outsourced training, AC = affective commitment, NC = normative
commitment.

affective (r = 0.38) and normative commitment (r = 0.27) at p <0.01 level with a weak to
moderate effect size. The customization of outsourced training was moderately correlated
with affective (r = 0.29) and normative commitment (r = 0.25) at p < 0.01 level, showing
a weak effect size. Supervisory support towards outsourced training was also moderately
correlated with affective (r = 0.40) and normative commitment (r = 0.34) at p < 0.01 level,
which revealed a moderate effect size.
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression showed that the first step collectively
explained 8.7% of the variance in affective commitment, which was statistically significant,
F(8, 216) = 2.56, p < 0.05 and 16.2% of the variance in normative commitment, which was
statistically significant, F(8, 215) = 5.12, p < 0.05. The coefficient values (see Table 2)

Table 2.

Results of hierarchical regression analysis with the main predictors.
Affective commitment

Variables
Step 1: Demographics and control
V
Education
Organization size
Company-provided training

β

2

ΔR

−0.09
−0.12
0.18*
0.09

Normative commitment
β
−0.14*
−0.09
0.24**
0.04

0.09*
Step 2: Significant predictors
Supervisory support
Relevance

0.34**
0.29**

0.16*
0.28**
0.19*

0.23**
Step 3
Customization
Step 4
Quality
Total R2
Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

0.04
−0.02

ΔR2

0.13**

0.00

0.00

0.00
0.32**

0.00
0.29**


156

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

indicated that only organization size was statistically significant (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) for
affective commitment and gender (β = −0.14, p < 0.05), and organization size was
statistically significant (β = 0.24, p < 0.05) for normative commitment.
In the second step of the regression the variable supervisory support for outsourced
training along with relevance and usefulness of outsourced training explained an incremental variance of 23.2% in affective commitment, which was statistically significant at F
(10, 214) = 10.05, p < 0.01 and an incremental variance of 13.1% was explained by
normative commitment, which was statistically significant at F(10, 213) = 8.81, p < 0.01.
The overall variance explained in affective commitment was 32% and in normative
commitment was 29.3%.
In the third and fourth blocks, customization and quality of outsourced training
accounted for limited incremental variance in affective and normative commitment at
non-statistically significant levels. The last two predictors did not add to the overall
variance, leading to the decision to drop the last two predictors from the final model.
The four components of outsourced training examined in this study such as quality,
relevance and usefulness, customization and supervisory support had a significant positive
relationship with organizational commitment. Each component accounted for a weak to
moderate percentage of unique variance in organizational commitment. Supervisory

support, relevance and usefulness of outsourced training added 23% of the variance in
affective commitment and 13% of the variance in normative commitment over and above
the demographic and control variables fully supporting hypotheses 3 and 5.
Although quality (5.8% of the variance in affective commitment and 3.6% of the
variance in normative commitment) and customization of outsourced training (9% of the
variance in affective commitment and 6% of the variance in normative commitment)
uniquely contributed to the overall total variance explained in organizational commitment,
the variables did not add any incremental variance to the model in steps 3 and 4,
respectively. Thus hypotheses 2 and 4 were only partially supported.
Discussion
The continued international trend towards companies outsourcing their HRM and HRD
activities (Babcock 2004, 2006; Jayanti 2012; Shih and Chiang 2011) has raised questions
on the effectiveness and impacts of having outside contractors provide key HR functions
(Shih and Chiang 2011). Previous studies of HR outsourcing have largely overlooked the
relationship and influence on the workplace attitudes of employees resulting from thirdparty vendors providing HRD. To date, the employee voice has been largely absent from
the training outsourcing literature despite the acknowledgement that potential employee
impacts should be fully considered by managers (Shih and Chiang 2011). This study
examined the relationship between employee perceptions of outsourced training and
organizational commitment using a sample from two global software consulting firms.
Despite the much anecdotal speculation that employees value outsourced training, there
has been little empirical study beyond simple evaluation studies often conducted by
outsourcing firms. The current findings show that aspects of employee perceptions of
outsourced training within the international IT industry are related to the desired workplace attitude of organizational commitment.
As was hypothesized, the results supported that frequency of participation in outsourced training programmes was found to be significantly related to normative commitment. This finding is in congruence with earlier studies (Bartlett 2001), which indicated
that frequency of participation in internal training was significantly correlated with


Human Resource Development International

157

affective commitment. Ahmed and Bakar (2003) also found frequency of participation in
training was positively correlated with both affective and normative commitment in their
study conducted with an international sample. The findings from this study confirmed that
the relationship also holds when the training is provided by an outsourcing vendor.
The quality and customization of outsourced training accounted for a weak to moderate
percentage of unique variance in organizational commitment, providing support for the
hypothesized relationship. However, the results of hierarchical regression analysis showed
that quality and customization of outsourced training did not add incremental variance over
and above supervisory support and usefulness and relevance of outsourced training. This
finding could be explained by the high inter-correlations between relevance and usefulness
of outsourced training with the quality of outsourced training (r = 0.55) and customization
of outsourced training (r = 0.55). However, tests for multicollinearity including variance
inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values showed that these were well within the accepted
range. This result may have been caused by the lack of specificity in the definition of these
constructs and the difficulty for respondents to rate their perceptions in the absence of
comparable non-outsourced training experiences. Gilley, Greer, and Rasheed (2004) noted
that firms may outsource part of their training programmes to reduce the costs of maintaining training staff for all company-sponsored learning activities.
The results showed that supervisory support towards outsourced training was the
strongest predictor of organizational commitment. This finding confirms the results of
several previous studies (Ahmed and Bakar 2003; Bartlett 2001; Noe and Wilk 1993;
Shore and Wayne 1993), noting a strong relationship between active encouragement from
top management and senior staff and increased training participation and commitment.
Employees may have a greater desire and sense of obligation to remain in organizations
when they view their senior managers and supervisors as supportive with their participation in outsourced training events. This could also suggest that firms adopting training
outsourcing with management largely ambivalent and focused primarily on the cost
savings aspects of using external training vendors may experience lower levels of
employee organizational commitment.
Implications
The debate to either ‘make or buy’ HRs dominated the earlier literature on training

outsourcing (Greer, Youngblood, and Gray 1999). The results of this research study
have expanded the focus from organizations and vendors to employees who receive
training from outsourced firms. This research has highlighted that employee attitudes
towards outsourced training and organizational commitment are related, encouraging
further research to consider relationships of training outsourcing to other key workplace
attitudes and behaviours. This study emphasized the potential role of social exchange
theory in examining employee perceptions of training outsourcing. The findings of this
study seem to confirm the suitability of the application of this theory to explore if
individual employees continue social relations on the basis of their expectations that
such relationships will result in mutually beneficial outcomes for both the parties
(Zafirovski 2005). The application of reciprocity, a core feature of social exchange theory,
might suggest that employees view their firms’ decision to outsource training as more than
a simple cost-saving strategy. If employees believe that the decision to outsource training
considered both the cost rationale and the desire to improve learning with access to
specialized expertise in terms of quality, usefulness and relevance of training, they may
reciprocate with increased organizational commitment.


158

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

However, the findings also potentially suggest that in the current organizational landscape with non-standard and contingent employment relations, the conventional approach
to social exchange theory may need to be reconsidered in order to examine the tripartite
HRD outsourcing relationship that exists with the employer, employee and external
training vendors (Kalleberg 2000; Kessler, Coyle-Shapiro, and Purcell 1999).
Outsourcing provides an additional dimension to the employment contract with a needed
recognition in both theory and practice that the selection, operation and outcomes from
outsourced training providers can cause and impact to how employers and especially
employees view the terms of employment. Lastly, while our study did not ask for

perceptions of the success of outsourcing, it is worth considering that the relationship
between outsourced training and organizational commitment may be very different in the
case of a failed and unsuccessful outsourced training initiative.
There are a number of implications for HRD practice that can be drawn from the
findings of this study. The increased use of training outsourcing as a global HR business
practice, coupled with limited knowledge of this practice on employee attitudes, has
highlighted the need for HRD research on this topic. The findings of this study inform
the practice of HRD in showing that training outsourcing can be positively related to
desired employee attitudes.
There remains more rhetoric, myth and misinformation surrounding the topic of
training outsourcing and how it may impact quality, timeliness, cost reductions, core
competencies, innovations and employee morale (Shih and Chiang 2011). Despite this,
the outsourcing of training is often inconsistent in implementation, and research has not
provided practitioners with the needed information to fully consider the most valuable
elements of high-quality and impactful outsourced training programmes. The findings of
this study provide practitioners with the knowledge that employee perceptions of quality,
usefulness and relevance, customization of outsourced training and supervisory support
are associated with higher commitment levels. Although a causal link cannot be established between employees’ perception of effective and ineffective outsourced training
practices with organizational commitment, the significant associations found with outsourced training indicate that the constructs are related. With this knowledge, HRD
practitioners should be more aware of outsourced training and the factors that relate to
commitment.
Limitations, recommendations and conclusion
This study has several limitations. The first limitation was the use of perceptual data based on
a survey using a single source, i.e. employees who received outsourced training. The perception of employees and employer may vary on how much the outsourced training programmes
were customized or how much the outsourced training programmes were relevant. Single or
common method variance as described by Podsakoff et al. (2003) is noted as a potential
limitation. Future studies should consider using different research designs and multiple data
sources to further examine attitudes related to e-training outsourcing.
Limitations relating to measurement issues also warrant attention. It is important to
acknowledge that the results could be biased depending on the training programme

selected. For the majority of the sample, the survey was conducted after a very successful
outsourced training event. This resulted in very positive employee reactions and high
levels of satisfaction with the training programme which perhaps overstated and enhanced
perceptions towards all outsourced HRD activities and increased their commitment to the
organization. For future research it would be worthwhile to consider employee reactions


Human Resource Development International

159

following an unsuccessful outsourced training event. Moreover, the type of training
outsourced whether technical or soft skills could also change employee perceptions
towards outsourced training. Future studies should incorporate different types of outsourced training to explore if employees react in different ways to various types of HRD.
Given the increasing use and considerable debate on the costs and benefits of training
outsourcing, this study is an important addition to the existing HRD literature. Although
literature exists on studies examining the relationship between external training providers
and client organizations, there is little evidence of empirical investigations on training
outsourcing from the perspective of employee attitudes. This lack of academic scrutiny
leads to a variety of unanswered and unresolved issues including what factors should be
considered when organizations outsource training. The presented study was a first step to
address the concern that the insiders’ perspective or employee voice has been missing
from the outsourcing literature (Kessler, Coyle-Shapiro, and Purcell 1999; Shen 2005).
The results of this study supported the proposition that training outsourcing is positively
associated with employee commitment. It is hoped that additional studies in this area will
build on and further develop knowledge in this area so that the rhetoric on outsourced
training is increasingly supplanted by research.
References
Aguinis, H., and K. Kraiger. 2009. “Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and
Teams, Organizations, and Society.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 451–474.

Ahmed, K. Z., and R. A. Bakar. 2003. “The Association Between Training and Organizational
Commitment among White Collar Workers in Malaysia.” International Journal of Training and
Development 7 (3): 166–185.
Anderson, C. 2008. “Training Outsourcing on the Decline.” Chief Learning Officer 7 (9): 62–64.
Babcock, P. 2004. “Slicing Off Pieces of HR.” HR Magazine 49 (7): 70–76.
Babcock, P. 2006. “A Crowded Space.” HR Magazine, March, 68–74.
Backes-Gellner, U., and S. Tuor. 2010. “Avoiding Labor Shortages by Employer Signaling – On the
Importance of Good Work Climate and Labor Relations.” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review 63 (2): 271–286.
Baker, D. 1996. “Are You Throwing Money Away by Outsourcing?” Personnel Journal 75 (11):
105–107.
Barney, J. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management
17 (1): 99–120.
Bartlett, K. R. 2001. “The Relationship Between Training and Organization Commitment: A Study
in the Healthcare Field.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 12 (4): 335–352.
Bartlett, K. R., and D. Kang. 2004. “Training and Organizational Commitment among Nurses
Following Industry and Organizational Change in New Zealand and the United States.”
Human Resource Development International 7 (4): 423–440.
Bassi, L. J., S. Cheney, and M. Van Buren. 1997. “Training Industry Trends 1997.” Training and
Development 5 (11): 46–59.
Belcourt, M. 2006. “Outsourcing – The Benefits and the Risks.” Human Resource Management
Review 16 (2): 269–279.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.
Bulut, C., and O. Culha. 2010. “The Effects of Organizational Training on Organizational
Commitment.” International Journal of Training and Development 14 (4): 309–322.
Chambel, M. J., and F. Sobral. 2011. “Training Is an Investment with Return in Temporary Workers:
A Social Exchange Perspective.” Career Development International 16 (2): 161–177.
Chiang, F. F. T., I. H. Chow, and T. A. Birtch. 2010. “Examining Human Resource Management
Outsourcing in Hong Kong.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2
(15): 2762–2777.

Constantine, L. 1995. Constantine on Peopleware. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cook, M. F. 1999. Outsourcing Human Resource Functions: Strategies for Providing Enhanced HR
Services at Lower Costs. New York: AMACOM.


160

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

Cooke, F. L., J. Shen, and A. A. McBride. 2005. “Outsourcing HR as a Competitive Strategy? A
Literature Review and an Assessment of Implications.” Human Resource Management 44 (4):
413–432.
Csoko, L. S. 1995. Rethinking Human Resources: A Research Report. The Conference Board,
Report No. 1124-95.
Dafoulas, G., and L. Macaulay. 2001. “Investigating Cultural Differences in Virtual Software
Teams.” The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries 7 (4): 1–14.
Dawley, D. D., M. C. Andrews, and N. S. Bucklew. 2008. “Mentoring, Supervisor, Support, and
Perceived Organizational Support: What Matters Most?” Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal 29: 235–247.
Dierendonck, D. V., and G. Jacobs. 2012. “Survivors and Victims, a Meta-Analytical Review of
Fairness and Organizational Commitment after Downsizing.” British Journal of Management
23: 96–109.
Ehrhardt, K., J. S. Miller, S. J. Freeman, and P. W. Hom. 2011. “An Examination of the Relationship
Between Training Comprehensiveness and Organizational Commitment: Further Exploration of
Training Perceptions and Employee Attitudes.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 22
(4): 459–489.
Eisenberger, R., P. Fasolo, and V. Davis-LaMastro. 1990. “Perceived Organizational Support and
Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (1): 51–59.
Feeney, D., M. Lacity, and L. P. Wilcox. 2005. “Taking the Measure of Outsourcing Providers.”
Sloan Management Review 46 (3): 41–48.

Gainey, T. W., and B. S. Klass. 2003. “The Outsourcing of Training and Development: Factors
Impacting Client Satisfaction.” Journal of Management 29 (2): 207–229.
Gainey, T. W., and B. S. Klass. 2005. “Outsourcing Relationships Between Firms and Their Training
Providers: The Role of Trust.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 16 (1): 7–25.
Galanaki, E., D. Bourantas, and N. Papalexandris. 2008. “A Decision Model for Outsourcing
Training Functions: Distinguishing Between Generic and Firm-Job-Specific Training
Content.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19 (12): 2332–2351.
Galanaki, E., and N. Papalexandris. 2007. “Internalization as a Determining Factor of HRM
Outsourcing.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (8): 1557–1567.
Gilley, K. M., C. R. Greer, and A. A. Rasheed. 2004. “Human Resource Outsourcing and
Organizational Performance in Manufacturing Firms.” Journal of Business Research 57 (3):
232–240.
Gilley, K. M., and A. A. Rasheed. 2000. “Making More by Doing Less: An Analysis of Outsourcing
and Its Effects on Firm Performance.” Journal of Management 26 (4): 763–790.
Greer, C. R., S. A. Youngblood, and D. A. Gray. 1999. “Human Resource Management
Outsourcing: The Make or Buy Decision.” Academy of Management Executive 13 (3): 85–96.
Guest, D. E. 1997. “Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research
Agenda.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 8: 263–276.
Guest, D. E. 1999. “Human Resource Management – The Workers’ Verdict.” Human Resource
Management Journal 9: 5–25.
Gupta, P. 2001. “Growth Scenario of IT Industries in India.” Communications of the ACM 44 (7):
40–41.
Gurchiek, K. 2005. “Record Growth: Outsourcing of HR Functions.” HR Magazine 50 (6): 35–36.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 38 (3):
635–672.
Jayanti, E. 2012. “Open Sourced Organizational Learning: Implications and Challenges of
Crowdsourcing for Human Resource Development (HRD) Practitioners.” Human Resource

Development International 15 (3): 375–384.
Joo, B., and J. H. Shim. 2010. “Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Commitment: The
Moderating Effect of Organizational Learning Culture.” Human Resource Development
International 13 (4): 425–441.
Kaeter, M. 1995. “Age-Old Myths.” Training 32 (1): 61–66.
Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. “Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-Time, Temporary, and Contract
Work.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 341–365.


Human Resource Development International

161

Kamarul, Z. A., and A. B. Raida. 2003. “The Association Between Training and Organizational
Commitment among the White-Collar Workers in Malaysia.” International Journal of Training
and Development 73: 166–185.
Kessler, I., J. Coyle-Shapiro, and J. Purcell. 1999. “Outsourcing and the Employee Perspective.”
Human Resource Management Journal 9 (2): 5–19.
Klass, B. S. 2003. “Professional Employer Organizations and Their Role in Small and Medium
Enterprises: The Impact of HR Outsourcing.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Fall:
43–61.
Klass, B. S., J. A. Mc Clendon, and T. W. Gainey. 1999. “HR Outsourcing and Its Impact: The Role
of Transaction Costs.” Personnel Psychology 52 (1): 113–136.
Klass, B. S., J. A. Mc Clendon, and T. W. Gainey. 2001. “Outsourcing HR: The Impact of
Organizational Characteristics.” Human Resource Management 40 (2): 125–138.
Klein, H. J., J. C. Molloy, and C. T. Brinsfield. 2012. “Reconceptualizing Workplace Commitment
to Redress a Stretched Construct: Revisiting Assumptions and Removing Confounds.” Academy
of Management Review 37 (1): 130–151.
Konovsky, M. A., and S. D. Pugh. 1994. “Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange.” Academy of
Management Journal 37 (3): 656–669.

Kooij, D. T., P. G. Jansen, J. S. Dikkers, and A. H. De Lange. 2010. “The Influence of Age on the
Associations Between HR Practices and Both Affective Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A
Meta Analyses.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 31 (8): 1111–1136.
Kotabe, M. 1992. Global Sourcing Strategy: R and D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Interfaces.
New York: Quorum.
Kozlowski, S., and B. M. Hults. 1987. “An Exploration of Climates for Technical Updating and
Performance.” Personnel Psychology 40: 539–563.
Kuo, T. H., L. A. Ho, C. Lin, and K. K. Lai. 2010. “Employee Empowerment in a Technology
Advanced Work Environment.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 110 (1): 24–42.
Kuruvilla, S., and A. Ranganathan. 2010. “Globalisation and Outsourcing: Confronting New Human
Resource Challenges in India’s Business Process Outsourcing Industry.” Industrial Relations
Journal 41 (2): 136–153.
Kuvaas, B. 2006. “Work Performance, Affective Commitment, and Work Motivation: The Roles of
Pay Administration and Pay Level.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 365–385.
Lacity, M., S. Khan, and L. Willcocks. 2009. “A Review of the IT Outsourcing Literature: Insights
for Practice.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18: 130–146.
Leeman, D., and D. Reynolds. 2012. “Trust and Outsourcing: Do Perceptions of Trust Influence the
Retention of Outsourcing Providers in the Hospitality Industry?” International Journal of
Hospitality Management 31: 601–608.
Leimbach, M. P. 2005. “Invited Reaction: Outsourcing Relationship Between Firms and Their
Training Providers: The Role of Trust.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 16 (1): 27–32.
Lepak, D. P., K. M. Bartol, and S. Gardner. 2004. “Understanding the Strategic Motivations for
Outsourcing HR Activities.” IHRIM Journal 81: 29–38.
Lever, S. 2002. “An Analysis of Managerial Motivations Behind Outsourcing Practices in Human
Resources.” Human Resource Planning 20 (2): 37–47.
Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1991. “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational
Commitment.” Human Resource Management Review 1: 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and
Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., and N. M. Parfyonova. 2010. “Normative Commitment in the Workplace: A

Theoretical Analysis and Re-Conceptualization.” Human Resource Management Review 20:
283–294.
Meyer, J. P., D. J. Stanley, T. A. Jackson, K. J. McInnis, E. R. Maltin, and L. Sheppard. 2012.
“Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment Levels Across Cultures: A MetaAnalysis.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2): 225–245.
Narayan, A., and D. Steele-Johnson. 2007. “Relationships Between Prior Experience of Training,
Gender, Goal Orientation, and Training Attitudes.” International Journal of Training and
Development 11 (3): 166–180.
NASSCOM. 2011. The IT-BOP Sector in India: Strategic Review. />

162

S. Chaudhuri and K.R. Bartlett

Newman, A., R. Thanacoody, and W. Hui. 2011. “The Impact of Employee Perceptions of Training
on Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intentions: A Study of Multinationals in the
Chinese Service Sector.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22 (8):
1765–1787.
Nijman, D. J., W. J. Nijhof, A. A. Wognum, and B. P. Veldkamp. 2004. “Differential Effects of
Supervisor Support on Transfer of Training.” Journal of European Industrial Training 30:
529–549.
Niosi, J., and F. T. Tschang. 2009. “The Strategies of Chinese and Indian Software Multinationals:
Implications for Internationalization Theory.” Industrial and Corporate Change 18 (2):
269–294.
Noe, R. A., and S. L. Wilk. 1993. “Investigation of the Factors That Influence Employees’
Participation in Development Activities.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (2): 291–302.
Paul, A. K., and R. N. Anantharaman. 2004. “Influence of HRM Practices on Organizational
Commitment: A Study among Software Professionals in India.” Human Resource
Development Quarterly 15 (1): 77–88.
Perry, C. 1997. “Outsourcing and Union Power.” Journal of Labor Research 18 (4): 521–534.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in

Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.
Prasad, J., H. G. Enns, and T. W. Ferratt. 2007. “One Size Does Not Fit All: Managing IT
Employees’ Employment Arrangements.” Human Resource Management 46: 349–372.
Punia, B. K., and P. Sharma. 2008. “Employees’ Perspective on Human Resource Procurement
Practices as a Retention Tool in Indian IT Sector.” The Journal of Business Perspective 12 (4):
57–69.
Riketta, M. 2002. “Attitudinal Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: A MetaAnalysis.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 257–266.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. “Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 41 (4): 574–599.
Rousseau, D. M. 1990. “New Hire Perceptions of Their Own and Their Employer’s Obligations: A
Study of Psychological Contracts.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 11: 389–400.
Sanders, N. R., A. Locke, C. B. Moore, and C. W. Autry. 2007. “A Multidimensional Framework
for Understanding Outsourcing Arrangements.” The Journal of Supply Chain Management 43
(4): 3–15.
Sharda, K., and L. Chatterjee. 2011. “Configurations of Outsourcing Firms and Organizational
Performance: A Study of Outsourcing Industry in India.” Strategic Outsourcing: An
International Journal 4 (2): 152–178.
Shaw, S., and D. Fairhurst. 1997. “Outsourcing the HR Function-Personal Threat or Valuable
Opportunity?” Strategic Change 6: 459–468.
Shen, J. 2005. “Human Resource Outsourcing: 1990–2004.” Journal of Organizational
Transformation and Social Change 2 (3): 275–295.
Shih, H., and Y. Chiang. 2011. “Exploring the Effectiveness of Outsourcing, Recruiting, and
Training Activities, and the Prospector’s Strategy’s Moderating Effect.” The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 22 (1): 163–180.
Shore, L. M., and S. J. Wayne. 1993. “Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of
Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational
Support.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5): 774–780.
Simmonds, D., and R. Gibson. 2008. “A Model for Outsourcing HRD.” Journal of European
Industrial Training 32 (1): 4–18.

Solinger, O. N., W. van Olffen, and R. A. Roe. 2008. “Beyond the Three-Component Model of
Organizational Commitment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 70–83.
Stroh, L. K., and D. Treehuboff. 2003. “Outsourcing HR Functions: When and When Not to Go
Outside.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 10 (1): 19–28.
Sverke, M., J. Hellgren, and K. Näswall. 2002. “No Security: A Meta-Analysis and Review of
Job Insecurity and Its Consequences.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7:
242–264.
Tharenou, P. 1997. “Organizational, Job, and Personal Predictors of Employee Participation in
Training and Development.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 46 (2):
111–134.


Human Resource Development International

163

Tracey, J. B., and M. J. Tews. 2005. “Construct Validity of a General Training Climate Scale.”
Organizational Research Methods 8: 353–374.
Tsui, A. S., J. L. Pearce, L. W. Porter, and A. M. Tripoli. 1997. “Alternative Approaches to the
Employee Organization Relationship: Does Investment in Employees Pay Off?” The Academy
of Management Journal 40 (5): 1089–1121.
van Knippenberg, D., and E. Sleebos. 2006. “Organizational Identification Versus Organizational
Commitment: Self-Definition, Social Exchange, and Job Attitudes.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 27: 571–584.
Whitener, E. M. 2001. “Do ‘High Commitment’ Human Resource Practices Affect Employee
Commitment? A Cross-Level Analysis Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling.” Journal of
Management 27: 515–535.
Whitten, D., S. Chakrabarty, and R. Wakefield. 2010. “The Strategic Choice to Continue
Outsourcing, Switch Vendors, or Back Source: Do Switching Costs Matter?” Information and
Management 47: 167–175.

Williamson, O. E. 1996. The Mechanisms of Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zafirovski, M. 2005. “Social Exchange Theory under Scrutiny: A Positive Critique of Its EconomicBehaviorist Formulations.” Electronic Journal of Sociology. />2005/tier2/SETheory.pdf


Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge 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.