Organizational-Level Training and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Investigation

verifiedmedium profile · Journal of Management · 2025

Kim, Joonyoung; Chang, Huikun; Bell, Bradford S.

10.1177/01492063251327588 · CrossRef: verified

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal addressed · external addressed · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.9

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

trainingorganizational performance

r = 0.13 · k=159 · grade A · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

While extensive research has examined the relationship between human resource management systems and organizational performance, the impact of organizational-level training—defined as the quantity and quality of training that an organization provides to its employees—remains less understood. In this article, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational-level training and organizational performance to determine the magnitude of the relationship and test a set of moderators of the relationship. Grounded in human capital theory, our meta-analysis employs a theoretically driven moderator analysis to identify the conditions under which organizational-level training significantly influences organizational performance. The results from 159 studies (N = 75,033) show that the relationship between organizational-level training and organizational performance is positive and significant ( ρ = .13, SD ρ = .17, 95% CI [.11, .16]). More importantly, the effect size differs significantly across several theoretical (e.g., training dimensions, type of human capital, outcome dimensions, and timing of measurement) and contextual (e.g., industry knowledge intensity, firm age, and region) moderators. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

0 supporting1 mentioninglegacy verdicts

No open-access quotations have been captured yet.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.

Organizational-Level Training and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Investigation · Principia