Next Article in Journal
A Study on Temporal and Spatial Differences in Women’s Well-Being in an Ecologically Vulnerable Area in Northwest China
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Benefit Assessment Matrix for Nanomaterials and Nano-enabled Products—Toward Safe and Sustainable by Design
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15032322
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development of a Structural Model for Sustainable Environment Training and Knowledge Transfer

by
Nur Izzaty Mohamad
1,*,
Aminudin Mokhtar
2,
Ishak Abd Rahman
2 and
Abdullah Sanusi Othman
2
1
School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), George Town 11800, Penang, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Economics and Management (FEP), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 2322; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032322
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 27 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The public sector is usually viewed as a formal and hierarchical organization. However, they need to improve the quality of their work to solve community matters satisfactorily. This study examines the mediating role of the motivation to learn in the relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer. This study is a cross-sectional study, using survey questionnaires to collect data from public servants at different divisions/departments in public organizations. SmartPLS was utilized to evaluate the quality of the study instrument and subsequently test the study hypotheses. The structural equation modeling test indicated that sustainable environment training affects knowledge transfer. Hence, the motivation to learn mediates the effect of sustainable environment training on knowledge transfer. Practitioners can utilize these findings to comprehend the diversity of perspectives on motivation to learn and to design a training program master plan that can increase employee motivation to succeed and maintain organizational strategies and goals in the global competition and organizational sustainability era.

1. Introduction

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the core agenda for sustainable development until the year 2030, agreed upon by world leaders at the United Nations Conference on 25 September 2015. Upon completing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015, the SDGs continued to guide global development efforts. Eight goals and 21 targets formed the MDGs. Subsequently, the SDGs have been expanded to include 17 goals and 169 targets. The 2030 agenda includes all three sustainable development aspects: social (e.g., sustainable places promoting wellbeing, integrating cultural roles, building real socialties, increasing employee productivity, providing intellectual stimulation, increasing dynamic exchanges, and creating a conducive environment for social interaction), economic (e.g., practices supporting long-term economic growth without negatively impacting communities’ social, environmental, and cultural aspects), and environmental (e.g., the process of meeting the need for air, food, water, and shelter) [1,2].
Sustainable development is largely credited to the World Commission on Environment and Development [3]. In their report, the commission defined sustainable development as a process that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This term significantly contributes to developing the sustainable development concept. Sustainable development necessitates conserving natural regions and utilizing available natural resources, particularly within organizations, to achieve present and future prosperity [2,3].
The effectiveness of SDGs in organizations can be achieved through developing long-term training programs to foster a positive and comfortable work environment, highly motivated employees, and peace and justice in the workplace. Additionally, these programs can continue positive behavior indefinitely, maintain value qualities in the physical and emotional environment, and maintain the type of development meeting the needs of the present without compromising the capabilities of future generations. In the development context, sustainability training is often interpreted as an organization’s efforts to provide formal or informal employee training to improve task efficiency, increase motivation, drive social change, increase productivity, stimulate innovation, create expertise in ways of thinking and working, and accept sustainability to shape and achieve high organizational and social performances [4,5].
Sustainable environment training in public organizations is designed to recruit, motivate, and retain competent individuals to achieve organizational objectives and strategies. Organizations need to adopt a more efficient strategy to provide additional value and present innovation and brand equity growth opportunities. It can be achieved by developing highly motivated connections and motivating employees towards working in a sustainable environment [6,7].
Most public organizations invest significantly in enhancing employee knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) to be more competitive in sustainable environment training [8,9]. For example, Omani public organizations have allocated a budget for training and development through education that can maximize human capital, requiring every employee to attend various formally or informally planned training sessions by organizations, external agencies, and training bodies [10]. Meanwhile, American organizations have invested USD 360 billion in employee training and development programs. Similarly, the Talent Development Association invested two hundred billion worldwide in 2015 [11]. These investments can improve employee career performance, resulting in monetary benefits for the organization and maintaining the effectiveness of SDGs [12,13,14].
Paulet et al. [15] suggested that sustainability based on human resources is more critical and places greater emphasis on social and ecological goals in addition to organizational goals and human resources. For instance, it is efficient and effective to sustain positive employee behaviors, such as employee development, flexibility, commitment, and wellbeing in the future. In this context, organizations typically implement sustainable environment training in an organizational context, providing both intrinsic motivation (e.g., social learning, concern/care for others’ values, welfare, and beliefs) and extrinsic motivation (e.g., providing principles, justice, ethics, procedures, training, teamwork, leadership, and collaboration) to assist employees in carrying out their day-to-day work responsibilities [16,17,18,19]. Therefore, sustainable environment training, as practiced in successful public organizations, encourages power delegation in which superiors will empower their subordinates in planning, managing, and monitoring training programs [13,14,20].
The importance of sustainable environment training cannot be denied in any organization type. Recent empirical studies found that the management’s ability to manage intrinsic and extrinsic motivation regularly could impact employee motivation to learn and knowledge transfer positively to create a harmonious environment with sustainable responsibilities [16,17,21,22]. In the sustainability context, motivation to learn typically refers to the inspiration that can influence changes in cognitive and affective domains and foster employee positive attitudes. It is evident through employees’ desire and determination to learn and master training content to achieve social sustainability, improve their daily work performance, and achieve organizational objectives [5,17,23,24]. On the other hand, training management frequently interprets knowledge transfer as the employees’ ability to learn and apply knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes derived from the attended training programs. They apply the acquired knowledge, skills, and attitudes upon returning to their workplace [17,23,24]. The most recent literature on public organization training management in-depth analysis revealed that even a carefully designed sustainable environment training would not be able to achieve its goals if the management does not play a role in planning and administering the training programs effectively [25,26].
However, most research on sustainable environment training has concentrated on its internal features, such as definition, purpose, types, and importance of its variables in public and private organizations [26,27]. Second, many prior studies preferred using direct effect models to examine the correlation between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer; for example, an individual’s motivation for knowledge transfer [28,29,30]. These models have been used extensively in many previous studies to investigate two significant relationships: between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer, and motivation to learn and knowledge transfer. The models were assessed using a simple statistical analysis (e.g., measuring the percentage, frequency, mean, and standard deviation and testing descriptive and bivariate statistics). The reported findings indicated the nature and extent of the association between the two study variables. In addition, the employed analysis was unable to detect the magnitude of the effect and the nature of motivation to learn as an important mediating variable in the research model. Previous research methodologies assessing the efficiency of motivation to learn were only able to produce generalized and easily predicted documentation and facts because of severe methodological limitations.
The third aspect is the sample selection, using the employees’ point of view from various employment categories (type of work, rank, and grade) [6,17,31]. The investigation into public organizations’ sustainable environment training in environmentally sustainable practices has not received much attention. For example, studies by [32] and [33] showed that sustainability-based training programs often face problems due to poor motivation to learn at work. In addition, ref. [33] stated that public organizations’ weak power pattern could hinder their learning efforts. Rebelo and Gomes [34] investigated factors influencing motivation to learn at work and found that the organizational structure lacks clear guidance from the top of the organization and fails to characterize public hierarchy. Consequently, many studies have not examined how sustainable environment training influences motivation to learn and knowledge transfer, particularly in Malaysian government organizations.
This situation motivates researchers to broaden the scope of previous research on the topic by analyzing the mediating role of motivation to learn in the interaction between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer. This paper will address a gap identified in the current literature review.
This paper’s structure is as follows. The next section will outline sustainable environment training components, provide the measurement and structural models, and explore the hypotheses. Based on the research model, this study investigates sustainable environment training in organizations. It is followed by the methodology and, in the subsequent section, the results analysis and presentation. Then, this paper will discuss and conclude the findings. Finally, this paper will present the study’s limitations and provide recommendations for future research.

2. Sustainable Environment Training in Public Organizations

Sustainable environment training is an organization’s strategy to communicate their responsibility to contribute to sustainable development by creating a balance between the economic, environmental, and social repercussions of their actions within their organizations [27,35,36]. Sustainable development in organizations requires conserving effective social goals to achieve present and future wellbeing. The sustainable development social aspect emphasizes the importance of maintaining strong relationships between and within generations [31,37]. Increased attention to the “triple bottom line”, as developed by [38], underscores organizations’ contributions to sustainable development; businesses and other organizations evaluate how their actions will affect their financial income and social and environmental interactions. Therefore, the SDGs outlined a global agreement to jointly focus on economic, environmental, and social goals, including the obligation to contribute to sustainable development and the cause of sustainable development [27,39,40].
Public organizations have a responsibility to diversified stakeholders; they must acknowledge and fulfill that responsibility to protect the interests of future generations from irresponsible destruction caused by the current generations [41]. Following the New Public Management (NPM) movement’s footsteps, public sector management has started to focus more on environmental and social concerns in organizations. More specifically, many researchers have stated that the NPM’s ‘results-oriented calculus’ has resulted in a hyper-focus on factors, such as cost-effectiveness, value for money and efficiency, social systems, greater flexibility, and transparency, in the public sector [35,42,43,44]. These academics contended that the NPM movement’s lopsided focus could be balanced by focusing more on sustainability issues [45]. Consequently, a heightened focus on organizational sustainability inside public organizations does not run counter to the NPM’s prescriptions. Instead, it provides a complementary route to enhancing governmental efforts to create efficiency and social and environmental impacts [27,35,42].
In Malaysia, public organizations are sector bodies responsible for assisting, controlling, implementing, and coordinating the main objectives of the national administration to develop a sustainable, efficient, and highly competitive public administration system [46,47]. The Central Agencies leadership realized that designing and implementing effective training programs is the only way to ensure the future availability of high-performing, competitive, and excellent human resources [48,49]. Based on the Public Organization Human Resource Training Policy authority outlined in Service Circular No. 6 Year (2005), various in-house and external training sessions have been implemented [50]. The fundamental objective of these training sessions is to provide a planned training method. It can efficiently and effectively increase productivity to achieve sustainable national economic growth, add value to career management, enhance task performance, cultivate employee talent, and accomplish organizational objectives [48,49].
Public organizations’ sustainable environment training is a crucial mechanism for boosting employee motivation to learn (e.g., acquiring new knowledge and skills to improve efficiency in performing daily tasks). It also encourages improvements in positive employee behavior (e.g., efficiently generating expertise, creating an excellent and innovative work culture, possessing the skills required for the task, developing positive attitudes, and adapting one’s knowledge to the current situation) and training transfer (skills, knowledge, and positive attitudes) [48,49,51]. Positive behavior can help improve managers’ efficiency and help employees to fulfill the national development agenda and strengthen democratic, proactive leadership founded on the principle of freedom [40,50].
An increasing body of literature indicates that managerial attention to sustainable environment training can positively impact an organization’s reputation by having a positive impact on employee motivation to learn. According to a recent study, employee motivation to learn can influence knowledge transfer within an organization [24,52]. For instance, highly trained employees can solve daily problems, improve work performance, implement tactical task planning, and effectively achieve organizational strategies [24,52]. Conversely, employees with low motivation to learn will not be able to handle work responsibilities in an orderly manner, fail to maintain the performance of daily tasks, and cannot meet the demands of their jobs and employers effectively [24,52].
Sustainable environment training in public organizations has implemented a blended method for the management, professional service group, and implementers to boost the motivation to learn [53]. In addition, one of the strategies includes implementing a mentoring program to assist employees through a professional guidance approach. This method helps employees improve the quality of job-transferable learning (e.g., current knowledge, new skills, the ability to adapt to task changes, and valuable experience) [53]. In comparison, the strategy adopted by the executive service group is to implement a coaching program designed to increase employee motivation to learn to manage and carry out tasks. This strategy improves employees’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills to manage and complete tasks more efficiently and effectively [50,53].
As mentioned earlier, based on recent studies, employee motivation to learn can influence information transfer within a company [24,52]. For example, highly trained individuals are able to address everyday difficulties, improve their work quality, execute strategic task planning, and accomplish organizational strategies effectively [24,52]. On the other hand, individuals with poor motivation to learn tend to have difficulties in performing tasks accordingly, exhibit inconsistent performance in performing their routines, and hardly meet their jobs and employers’ expectations [24,40,52].
Human resource management must have clear objectives and strategies to enhance employee knowledge and skills and facilitate positive knowledge transfer [24,52]. The management’s ability to launch training programs that can change employee behavior, such as optimizing performance, meeting corporate objectives, determining skills, increasing knowledge, establishing social relationships between employers and employees, providing new opportunities, providing efficient management lines, being able to accept recent technologies, and satisfying employees’ desires and wishes well, can act as a catalyst [24,54].

3. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

3.1. Sustainable Environment Training and Knowledge Transfer

Previous studies examined the sustainable environment training elements based on one dimension only. For example, a study by [16] examined the role of sustainable environment training on knowledge transfer. This study only focused on encouragement and recognition and ignored other sustainable environment training elements. It may be because sustainable environment training forms practiced by top management can achieve better coordination and specification of planned tasks in an organization.
Several studies have investigated sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer in different organizational settings, such as the perceptions of 287 public employees in Saudi Arabia [55] and 110 respondents from several medium-sized organizations in the three counties in Northwestern Croatia [56]. The findings showed that effective and sustainable environment training consists of two important characteristics: intrinsic motivation (e.g., encourages employees to attend training, empathy) and extrinsic motivation (e.g., gives recognition and credit to those applying new knowledge and skills to their work). These studies demonstrated that sustainable environment training, such as intrinsic and extrinsic incentives, could improve the likelihood that employees will transfer skills. Furthermore, the management’s ability to implement positive sustainable environment training strongly motivates employees to learn and master new human and non-human competencies and other capabilities matching current organizational needs and requirements.
The role of sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer is consistent with the leader-member exchange theory proposed by [57]. The theory can be considered a process approach since it stresses the importance of the dynamic interaction between a leader and his/her subordinates. It explains the two major types of relationships in an organization: a high-quality and a low-quality relationship between leaders and members. In the high-quality relationship context, it defines the leaders’ willingness to foster increased physical and emotional motivation when dealing with employees, such as providing information and feedback, and showing openness, helpfulness, empathy, and caring. These attributes can enhance positive employee behavior. Conversely, in a low-quality relationship, the leaders’ inability to provide high physical and emotional motivation to employees can result in a negative outcome. The theory’s foundation is well supported by workplace training management research. Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Intrinsic motivation is associated with knowledge transfer.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Extrinsic motivation is associated with knowledge transfer.

3.2. Sustainable Environment Training and Motivation to Learn

Previous studies did not support sustainable environment training as an effective predictor variable for motivation to learn. For example, the study by [58] only focused on one sustainable environment training element, namely extrinsic motivation. It is likely because extrinsic motivation forms extended by the management can inspire employees to maintain skills and master knowledge to achieve an organization’s needs and strategies.
On the other hand, several studies in the 21st century reported sustainable environment training as an effective predictor variable for motivation to learn in various organizational settings; for example, the perceptions of 216 respondents from educational organizations in the US [59]. The study revealed that sustainable environment training comprises intrinsic motivation (e.g., providing adequate support) and extrinsic motivation (e.g., comfortable communication and guidance). In addition, the management’s ability to appropriately apply sustainable environment training has been a significant determinant of the motivation to learn [55,59].
A sustainable environment training as an effective predictor variable for motivation to learn is consistent with Adam’s equity theory, positing that sustainable environment training leads to motivation to learn [60,61]. This theory is frequently associated with workplace behavior. In 1963, the paradigm focusing on the balance between input and output proliferated. The input is one’s contribution to a responsibility, whereas the output is the reward or return emerging from the commitment. Individual behavior can be strongly affected by the management’s capacity to ensure fair treatment in the allocation and exchange of resources. The fair distribution of resources is often conducted in two unique ways. The first way is through human psychology (e.g., tolerance, support, loyalty, sacrifice, and joy). The second is through physical forms (e.g., the provision of salaries, prizes, facilities, remuneration, recognition, and leave), known as equitable norms [55,59]. Thus, according to this theory, employers who can strike a balance between input and output can incentivize employees to execute tasks efficiently and effectively. It means that employees who are satisfied with the service they receive from their employers will make contributions in return. Consequently, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Intrinsic motivation is associated with motivation to learn.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Extrinsic motivation is associated with motivation to learn.

3.3. Mediating Effect of Motivation to Learn

Some previous studies did not recognize motivation to learn as an important mediating variable in the relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer. For example, the study by [55] only focused on motivation to learn elements, such as interest, desire, and excitement. It may be because the motivation to learn categories that the management emphasizes only can help employees manage and perform tasks better in the organization.
In contrast, several recent studies have confirmed that the mediating role of motivation to learn is important in the relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer. Related research includes the perceptions of 131 employees working in various Malaysian public sector organizations [22] and 150 faculties of the higher education sector [58]. The studies’ findings confirmed that the administrators’ willingness to provide sufficient intrinsic motivation (e.g., advice, encouragement, concern, and tolerance) and extrinsic motivation (e.g., providing training information and facilities, and arranging a conducive training environment) could increase employee motivation to learn. It additionally has a positive impact concerning the training transfer.
The mediating role of motivation to learn in the relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer is consistent with the adult learning theory proposed by [62]. This theory states that an individual’s maturity can change when he/she accepts the benefits offered by an organization to improve his/her knowledge, skills, positive behavior, and ways of thinking. It explains five critical assumptions of adult learners (andragogy), including (i) self-concept (a self-directed human being), (ii) adult learner experience (accumulation of a growing reservoir of experience acting as a resource for learning), (iii) readiness to learn (learn subjects that have immediate relevance and impact on the learners’ job or personal life), (iv) orientation to learning (learn knowledge to be applied and problem-centeredness), and (v) motivation to learn (internal motivation to learn). These assumptions are recognized as a maturity within adult education. Applying this idea to workplace training reveals that employees will typically learn and master competencies by carefully monitoring and analyzing a situation, which will significantly drive them to gain valuable competencies. Consequently, this drive may result in activities increasing individual benefits. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Motivation to learn mediates the relationship between intrinsic motivation and knowledge transfer.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Motivation to learn mediates the relationship between extrinsic motivation and knowledge transfer.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Research Model

The literature was also used as the platform to establish a conceptual framework. It explains that the relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer is indirectly affected by the motivation to learn, as shown in Figure 1.

4.2. Methodology

This study employed the survey method as a research strategy. It permits the researchers to collect the study’s data using a cross-sectional methodology. Data gathered through this method are very useful to assess the measurement and structural models. The fundamental advantage of this strategy is that it facilitates the researchers to collect relevant, accurate, and high-quality data [63,64]. The data collection process started by preparing survey questionnaire items based on the workplace training literature. Next, this study utilized the retranslation method proposed by [65] to translate the actual meaning of the items from English to Malay and from Malay to English. This method is vital to provide more accurate and easily understood results for the studied organizations’ respondents. For instance, the researchers engaged the services of several English and Malay language instructors and three lecturers in human resource management at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia to translate the survey questionnaire. This translation approach ensures that the study’s questionnaire has high precision, authenticity, and reliability and can be utilized in the subsequent analytic phase. Then, a pilot study was conducted to re-evaluate and retest the usefulness of this research instrument. The survey questionnaires for the actual study were then distributed to the study’s participants.

4.3. Variables Measurement

The survey questionnaire consisted of three components. First, the sustainable environment training component consisted of intrinsic and external motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation had six components that were updated based on organizational training literature [66,67]. Second, motivation to learn was measured based on eight items developed based on training management literature [66,67]. Finally, knowledge transfer was measured based on six items modified from organizational behavior literature [68,69]. Next, these items were measured based on an answer scale, ranging from one (strongly disagree/extremely unsatisfied) to seven (strongly agree/very satisfied). Questionnaire items were sorted based on the criteria of having a composite reliability value and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient greater than 0.8, as recommended by [70] and [64]. A seven-point scale was chosen because it generates more neutral feedback and increases dependability [71,72]. Meanwhile, demographic items served as control variables because their role as predictor variables did not receive strong support according to previous theories and empirical studies related to research objectives, research framework, and hypothesis development. As such, this survey, as shown in Table 1, was utilized to study research concerns based on employee attitudes in general.

4.4. Sample and Data Collection

The unit of analysis for this study is public servants working in various divisions/units in the Malaysian Central Agencies. These agencies serve as the Malaysian administrative machinery, particularly in formulating and implementing national policies. Among them are the management services, human resources, finance, policy, service, and information technology departments, all of which comprise the highest level of management service groups, management, and professionals and implementers.
A purposive sample strategy was administered by distributing 1000 sets of printed questionnaires to employees working in these organizations. The respondents were those with more than five years of working experience in the organizations and an understanding of the phenomenon and administrative planning of workplace training programs. This study opted for this selection technique since the organization could not provide a list of registered personnel due to confidentiality issues. This constraint did not allow the researchers to utilize a random method in selecting the study sample. The researchers provided the printed questionnaires to the human resource managers, who helped distribute them to employees willing to participate in this study. They also helped gather and return the completed questionnaires to the researchers. Only 744 (93%) viable questionnaires were included in the data analysis. It is important to note that the respondents participated in this study based on consent; there was no coercion, and all respondents were anonymous.
Comprehensive training management policies have been established by public organizations based on the grand national agenda (e.g., Vision and Mission 2022, Sustainable Development Goals, New Economic Models, and Transformational Organizational Objectives) and global challenges (e.g., globalization, borderless world, Industrial Revolution 4.0, international cooperation, and economic crises). Apart from that, the ministry has given the authority to the public organization leadership to implement the training program’s objectives, types, learning content and methods, and procedures to achieve the outlined strategic vision and mission. In public organization institutions, responsible centers are empowered to arrange training programs, such as providing courses, seminars, and training, to improve public employees’ working skills. In addition, the training program can determine areas of expertise based on the department’s primary function consistent with the organization’s vision and mission towards establishing the country’s direction. Most participants showed high levels of sustainable environment training (motivation and communication), motivation to learn, and knowledge transfer. It shows that the management’s ability to provide sustainable environment training, such as motivation and communication in training environment activities, will strongly enhance employee motivation to learn. Consequently, this motivation can increase knowledge transfer.
Table 2 shows the respondents’ profiles. Most respondents are between 34 to 39 years old (37.6%), female (67.8%), from the support service group (54.9%), Bachelor’s degree holders (34.4%), and married (68.9%). The adequacy of the study sample is measured based on a rule of thumb, that is, the highest number of formative indicators in the survey questionnaire should be more than ten times, and the items for the measurement model must have an outer loading higher than the standard threshold of 0.70 [73]. Therefore, the sustainable environment training construct, with six items, has the highest formative indicators in the survey questionnaires. Based on this guideline, the sample size should be at least 60 respondents. The sample size of this study has fulfilled the above criteria; thus, it can be utilized to assess the research hypotheses.

5. Results

This study used the SmartPLS software to examine the survey questionnaire data. The data analysis process consisted of the following: first, this study utilized a measurement model analysis to establish the validity and reliability of the study instruments [74]. Second, this study employed a structural model analysis to examine the direct effect and mediating models. Hypotheses could be established when the t-value was significant at 1.95. Third, this study used the R2 value to estimate the exploratory power of the study model based on three major criteria: 0.26 for strong, 0.13 for moderate, and 0.02 for weak exploratory power [75]. Fourth, the model fit was determined when the estimated standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) value was less than 0.10 and 0.08 [76], suggesting that the used study model was considered a good fit. Fifth, this study also utilized the f2 value to determine the influence of size based on three fundamental criteria: 0.35 for large, 0.15 for medium, and 0.02 for small. Next, the blindfolding value (Q2) was measured using a value threshold greater than zero, indicating that the construct attained the degree of predictive accuracy specified by [73]. The SmartPLS package has the benefit of being able to analyze the measurement model data simultaneously, either relative or/and formative, through path analyses. Apart from that, it does not require normally distributed data, is capable of analyzing data with a small sample size and is user-friendly with an attractive interface display [74].

5.1. Measuring Construct Validity and Discriminant Validity

A reflective measurement model is needed to assess the two types of validity and reliability analyses: convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity refers to the degree to which indicators share a high proportion of variance in common. According to [73], factor loading, composite reliability, and the average variance extracted (AVE) can be used to assess convergent validity in the reflective measurement model. In contrast, a discriminant validity analysis is assessed using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) technique [70].
The instrument validity and reliability analyses were examined for reflective and formative constructs based on the hierarchical component model (HCM) by employing a two-level analysis combining higher-order and lower-order constructs. Table 3 provides the reflective measurement model evaluation performed based on the rate of loading, AVE, and composite reliability values. For the correlation of items with the concept, the loading value was larger than 0.70. Meanwhile, the AVE value was higher than 0.50 [73]. Next, the composite reliability value was higher than 0.70, signifying that all the constructs successfully reached convergent validity standards, as stated by [73].
Table 4 presents the discriminant validity test results, measured using the HTMT ratio. This test demonstrates that the study constructs have a value smaller than 0.85, meaning that all the study components are able to achieve the discriminant validity suggested by [73].
Table 5 reports the instrument validity and reliability analyses for the formative items represented by the sustainable environment training construct to assess the redundancy analysis, measure the VIF, and evaluate the outer weight scores. The findings demonstrate that convergent validity can be assessed using redundancy analyses. First, the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation formative constructs yield path coefficients of 0.830, which is more than 0.80. Thus, the formative constructs have sufficient degrees of convergent validity. Next, the significance and relevance of the outer weight are between 7.071 and 8.402, signifying that the study’s sub-concept has passed the necessary conditions for hypothesis testing [73]. Furthermore, the VIF value for the sub-constructs is less than 5.0, suggesting that the sub-constructs are free from significant collinearity difficulties [73]. As a result, these indicators fulfill the formative measurement test.
Table 6 describes the simple statistical test results. The findings show that the mean value ranges from 5.590 to 5.867, suggesting that the sustainable environment training constructs (intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation), motivation to learn, and knowledge transfer are at a high (5) or very high (6) level.

5.2. Structural Model

The outcomes of the structural model show the direct effect and mediating models. First, the model fit test results indicate that the SRMR value is 0.057, smaller than 0.10 or 0.08 [73]. This result demonstrates that this model has a good fit. Second, the model strength test (R2) results show that intrinsic motivation explains 0.51% of the variance in motivation to learn, more significant than 0.26 [75], indicating that this model has a substantial effect. The results for extrinsic motivation indicate that 0.51% of the variance in motivation to learn is bigger than 0.26 [75], indicating that this model has a substantial effect. Next, motivation to learn explains 0.47% of the variance in knowledge transfer, bigger than 0.26 [75], indicating that this model has a substantial effect. Extrinsic motivation explains 0.47% of the variance in knowledge transfer, bigger than 0.26 [75], indicating that this model has a substantial effect. Finally, the results for intrinsic motivation indicate that 0.47% of the variance in knowledge transfer is bigger than 0.26 [75], indicating that this model has a substantial effect.
Third, the effect size test results reveal that the relationship between intrinsic motivation and motivation to learn has an f2 value of 0.052, higher than 0.02 and smaller than 0.15 [73], showing that it has a negligible effect on motivation to learn. The relationship between extrinsic motivation and motivation to learn has an f2 value of 0.130, higher than 0.02 and smaller than 0.15 [73], showing that it has an insignificant effect on motivation to learn. The relationship between intrinsic motivation and knowledge transfer has an f2 value of 0.031, higher than 0.02 and smaller than 0.15 [73], showing that it has a small effect on knowledge transfer. The relationship between extrinsic motivation and knowledge transfer has an f2 value of 0.005, smaller than 0.02 [73], showing that it has a negligible effect on knowledge transfer. The relationship between motivation to learn and knowledge transfer shows an f2 value of 0.161, higher than 0.15 and smaller than 0.35 [73], suggesting that it has a medium effect on knowledge transfer.
Fourth, the predictive relevance test (Q2) results show that motivation to learn has a Q2 value of 0.391, and knowledge transfer has a Q2 value of 0.354, illustrating that it has predictive relevance [73]. Finally, the predictive performance test (Q2-predict) results show that the Q2-predicted values for all items in the PLS-SEM (0.596 to 0.656) and LM RMSE (0.586 to 0.661) are bigger than zero, illustrating the prediction errors are symmetrically distributed. Most of the PLS-SEM values (−0.004 to −0.013) have lower prediction errors than those of the LM RMSE values (0.001 to 0.013), indicating that this model has a medium predictive power [77]. The structural model is illustrated in Figure 2.

5.3. Outcomes of Hypotheses Testing H1–H4

Table 7 shows the results of testing the direct model research hypotheses: (1) Support that intrinsic motivation positively and significantly correlates with knowledge transfer (β = 0.238; t = 4.164), resulting in H1 being accepted; (2) Support that extrinsic motivation is positively and significantly correlated with knowledge transfer (β = 0.100; t = 1.691); therefore, H2 is not accepted; (3) Support that intrinsic motivation positively and significantly correlates with motivation to learn (β = 0.288; t = 5.176); therefore, H3 is accepted; (4) Support that extrinsic motivation is positively and significantly correlated with knowledge transfer (β = 0.457; t = 8.258); therefore, H4 is accepted. These results confirm that motivation to learn and knowledge transfer are essential outcomes of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

5.4. Outcomes of Hypotheses Testing H5 and H6

Table 8 exhibits the results of assessing the indirect model research hypotheses. The relationship between intrinsic motivation and the motivation to learn is significantly correlated with knowledge transfer (β = 0.120; t = 4.444); therefore, H5 is accepted. The relationship between extrinsic motivation and motivation to learn is significantly correlated with knowledge transfer (β = 0.191; t = 6.370); therefore, H6 is accepted. These results confirm that motivation to learn and knowledge transfer are essential outcomes of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Hence, the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in knowledge transfer is mediated by the motivation to learn. Generally, the mediating effects of the relationship between intrinsic motivation, motivation to learn, and knowledge transfer account for full mediation in the hypothesized model. It is due to the direct effect and indirect effect models being significant and pointing in the same direction [78]. Next, the mediating effect of the relationship between extrinsic motivation, motivation to learn, and knowledge transfer accounts for partial mediation in the hypothesized model. It is due to the direct effect model being insignificant, the indirect effect model being significant, and the fact that they are pointing in the same direction [78].
Table 9 illustrates the IPMA’s results. Similarly, intrinsic motivation has the greatest impact (0.306) and produces the best results (77.988). In contrast, motivation to learn has the lowest total effect (0.353) and the lowest performance (72.974). Therefore, motivation to learn should be prioritized to enhance training management.

6. Discussions and Implication

This study developed a conceptual framework based on the literature on public organization management programs. The study’s findings show that the effect of sustainable environment training on knowledge transfer is mediated by motivation to learn.
In this study’s context, most scores for sustainable environment training, motivation to learn, and knowledge transfer are high. These findings show that the management’s ability to build positive sustainable environment training with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation will strongly increase employee motivation to attend and participate in sessions, and learn and master new competencies. Consequently, this motivation can lead to higher knowledge transfer for public sector employees.
Furthermore, this study’s findings are supported by previous studies, acknowledging that motivation to learn and knowledge transfer are directly influenced by sustainable environment training, such as intrinsic motivation (e.g., social learning, concern/care for others, values, welfare, advice, encouragement, and tolerance) and extrinsic motivation (e.g., providing training information and facilities, justice, ethics, training climate, and collaboration opportunities). The relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer is also mediated by the motivation to learn [22,58]. In sum, the most important findings of this study increase the understanding that the motivation to learn can play a key role as an influential mediating variable in the relationship between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer within the Malaysian Central Agencies. Thus, this study supports and extends the findings of previous studies, primarily circulating in Western and Asian countries.
On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is not significant in knowledge transfer. This study’s findings are unable to support the findings of previous studies by [55,56]. The literature review in this study showed that extrinsic motivation is unable to serve as an effective predictor of knowledge transfer due to several factors. First, the management support is insufficient. It causes employee motivation to be inconsistent, and it can emotionally and physically prevent employees from transferring knowledge in the organization. Second, the designed training programs may not meet the needs and requirements of the task to increase employee motivation levels. If these findings are ignored, it will reduce the level of employee extrinsic motivation and may increase negative attitudes and behaviors in the workplace.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study provides two critical implications: theoretical and practical. Concerning theoretical implications, this study’s outcomes confirm that motivation to learn has mediated the effect of sustainable environment training on knowledge transfer. This outcome is consistent with the notion of the adult learning theory by [62]. This theory suggests that employees will typically learn and master competencies by carefully monitoring and analyzing a situation, which will significantly drive them to gain valuable competencies. Consequently, this drive may result in increased individual activities that are extremely beneficial, such as knowledge transfer. In this study, the management’s ability to practice motivation and communication properly will enhance employee motivation to learn. Consequently, this motivation to learn may then increase knowledge transfer in organizations.

6.2. Practical Implications

Concerning practical implications, this study’s outcomes can be used by practitioners to improve the sustainable environment training sessions run by training program management in public organizations. The IPMA results (see Table 9) show that motivation to learn is a critical management problem that organizations should overcome. To achieve this objective, employers should pay more attention to the following issues. First, supervisors should guide and support subordinates to help them improve their performance by encouraging them to attend training programs. It will help talented employees increase their motivation and stimulate them to maintain and improve the organization’s performance in the future. Second, the management needs to organize training programs that can significantly impact employees’ careers, such as designing training content with the skills to perform tasks and in-depth knowledge of their field. Third, the management needs to be competent in using communication skills either verbally or in writing. For example, suppose a supervisor has essential information related to training programs to share with his/her employees; in such cases, the supervisor should consider the best way to convey that message and remain flexible if another approach is needed (e.g., asking questions and welcoming employee feedback). Fourth, the management needs to provide training facilities that are attractive, adequate, up-to-date, and comfortable. It can help increase employee enthusiasm for and interest in attending training and in learning all the benefits of the training program. Fifth, supervisors should evaluate employee performance fairly and provide management feedback on specific tasks or projects.
Future research and training programs need to view motivation to learn as an essential aspect of the sustainable environment training domain. This research further suggests that the management’s capability to appropriately practice communication and motivation relationships with employees from diverse backgrounds in formal and/or informal training program activities will strongly stimulate positive employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., career achievement, skills, and motivation). Therefore, this positive outcome may lead to maintaining and upgrading public organizations’ competitiveness and performance in dealing with globalization and challenging times.

7. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

There are several limitations in the conceptual and methodological aspects of this study. First, the cross-sectional study design is only able to describe the general perception of the respondents on the relationship pattern between the study variables, such as the dependent variables (sustainable environment training), mediating variables (motivation to learn), and independent variables (knowledge transfer). Second, this study does not measure the specific dimensions of the study variables. Third, the structural equation modeling technique has explained the extent to which the set indicators can function as an effective measurement tool for each construct based on testing the direct effect model and the effective model of the mediating variables. It has limited the ability of the study’s findings to be generalized to a more extensive study population. Fourth, the sample of this study only assessed Malaysian public sector employees. Fifth, the purposive sampling technique used to collect data was unable to control respondents’ biased responses. The limitations of this study were found to reduce the ability of the findings to be generalized to various organizations with different patterns and backgrounds. We need to take into account some suggestions for improvement to strengthen the findings of future studies.
The current study provides recommendations for future research improvements. First, the respondents’ demographic features (e.g., position status and pay) should be prioritized in the future testing of models to investigate the similarities and differences in their responses regarding the relationship between the study variables. It may enhance the comprehension of how employee attributes influence sustainable environment training in public organizations. Second, researchers must evaluate the effectiveness of hypothetical models across subsamples. A longitudinal study should also be explored in future studies. Thirdly, future research should integrate both the public and private sectors to improve the efficiency of the study design. Fourth, additional variables, such as independent variables (e.g., training content), mediating variables (desire to learn and transfer), and dependent variables (organizational citizenship behavior, in-role behavior, and job competency) require consideration, as they are deemed significant variables in the literature review of organizational training management.

8. Conclusions

This study evaluated a conceptual framework developed based on the workplace training literature. The study instrument successfully meets the standard of validity and reliability analyses. The finding of the mediating model reveals that motivation to learn is an effective mediating variable between sustainable environment training and knowledge transfer. This finding is consistent with and has widened the scope of previous studies undertaken mainly in Western and Asian countries. Therefore, current research and practices within workplace training must address motivation to learn as a significant component of sustainable environment training. This study further implies that the management’s ability to use communication and motivation strategies correctly will significantly trigger employee motivation to learn. Consequently, this motivation may later enhance positive information transfer outcomes (e.g., mastering knowledge for job efficiency, systematically applying the knowledge obtained, making adjustments to one’s knowledge when the environment changes, and absorbing taught knowledge well). It, in turn, can contribute to preserving and supporting organizational strategies and attaining the SDGs.
This study also suggests that motivation to learn should be integrated. Finally, these data support the hypothesis that sustainable environment training can enhance employee motivation to learn (e.g., essential knowledge, new skills, new cognitive and emotional abilities, positive attitudes, and current abilities). As a result, it can sustain and upgrade organizational competitiveness and performance in an uncontrolled changing world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.I.M. and A.M.; methodology, N.I.M.; software, N.I.M.; validation, N.I.M. and A.M.; resources, A.M. and A.S.O.; writing—original draft preparation, N.I.M., A.M. and I.A.R.; writing, N.I.M.; writing—review and editing, N.I.M., A.M., I.A.R. and A.S.O.; project administration, N.I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the study’s findings are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We also thank Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM, Penang, Malaysia) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM, Bangi, Malaysia) for supporting this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Department of Statistic Malaysia Official Portal. Available online: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cone&menu_id=d3EvQThuRnFsSGlrQXRtY2E5R0wvZz09 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  2. Rodríguez-Sabiote, C.; Úbeda-Sánchez, Á.M.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, J.; Álvarez-Ferrándiz, D. Active Learning in an Environment of Innovative Training and Sustainability. Mapping of the Conceptual Structure of Research Fronts through a Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fauth, F.; González-Martínez, J. Trainees’ personal characteristics in the learning transfer process of permanent online ICT teacher training. Sustainability 2021, 14, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hansmann, R. “Sustainability Learning”: An Introduction to the Concept and Its Motivational Aspects. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2873–2897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Crucke, S.; Kluijtmans, T.; Meyfroodt, K.; Desmidt, S. How does organizational sustainability foster public service motivation and job satisfaction? The mediating role of organizational support and societal impact potential. Public Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 1155–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vitale, R.; Blaine, T.; Zofkie, E.; Moreland-Russell, S.; Combs, T.; Brownson, R.C.; Luke, D.A. Developing an evidence-based program sustainability training curriculum: A group randomized, multi-phase approach. Implement. Sci. 2018, 13, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Blume, B.D.; Ford, J.K.; Baldwin, T.T.; Huang, J.L. Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. J. Manag. 2009, 36, 1065–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Chauhan, R.; Ghosh, P.; Rai, A.; Shukla, D. The impact of support at the workplace on transfer of training: A study of an Indian manufacturing unit. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2016, 20, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rajasekar, J.; Khan, S. Training and Development Function in Omani Public Sector Organizations: A Critical Evaluation. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. 2013, 14, 37–52. [Google Scholar]
  11. Association for Talent Development. State of Industry Report USA. 2015. Available online: https://www.td.org/research-reports/2015-state-of-the-industry (accessed on 13 January 2023).
  12. Ma, C.C.; Chang, H.P. Training Transfer in the Taiwanese Hotel Industry: Factors and Outcomes. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2013, 41, 761–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Turan Çimşir, B.; Uzunboylu, H. Awareness Training for Sustainable Development: Development, Implementation and Evaluation of a Mobile Application. Sustainability 2019, 11, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Birou, L.M.; Green, K.W.; Inman, R.A. Sustainability knowledge and training: Outcomes and firm performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 294–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paulet, R.; Holland, P.; Morgan, D. A meta-review of 10 years of green human resource management: Is Green HRM headed towards a roadblock or a revitalisation? Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour. 2021, 59, 159–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cromwell, S.E.; Kolb, J.A. An examination of work-environment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2004, 15, 449–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hughes, A.M.; Zajac, S.; Woods, A.L.; Salas, E. The role of work environment in training sustainment: A meta-analysis. Hum. Factors 2019, 62, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mielniczuk, E.; Laguna, M. Motivation and training initiation: Evidence from Poland. J. Work. Learn. 2017, 29, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Afshan, G.; Serrano-Archimi, C. My supervisor supports me better than the past: Integration of social and temporal comparison. J. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2022, 38, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sarfraz, M.; Hussain, Z.; Syed, N.; Rehman, F.; Rollah Bin Abdul Wahab, S.; Salihuddin, M. Work environment and training transfer intentions: Does organizational justice moderate their relationship? SAGE Open 2021, 11, 21582440211046940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Awais Bhatti, M.; Ali, S.; Mohd Isa, M.F.; Mohamed Battour, M. Training transfer and transfer motivation: The influence of individual, environmental, situational, training design, and affective reaction factors. Perform. Improv. Q. 2014, 27, 51–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ng, K.H.; Ahmad, R. Personality traits, social support, and training transfer. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nijman, D.J.M.; Nijhof, W.J.; Wognum, A.A.M.I.; Veldkamp, B.P. Exploring differential effects of supervisor support on transfer of training. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2006, 30, 529–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Venkitachalam, K.; Bosua, R. Perspectives on effective digital content management in organizations. Knowl. Process Manag. 2019, 26, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pasamehmetoglu, A.; Guchait, P.; Tracey, J.B.; Cunningham, C.J.L.; Lei, P. The moderating effect of supervisor and coworker support for error management on service recovery performance and helping behaviors. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2017, 27, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yang, M.; Watson, S.L. Attitudinal influences on transfer of training: A systematic literature review. Perform. Improv. Q. 2022, 34, 327–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nguyen, A.N.; Nguyen, T.P.; Kieu, K.T.; Nguyen, Y.T.H.; Dang, D.T.; Singer, J.; Schruefer, G.; Tran, T.B.; Lambrechts, W. Assessing teacher training programs for the prevalence of sustainability in learning outcomes, learning content and didactic approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 365, 132786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cheng, E.W.L.; Ho, D.C.K. The influence of job and career attitudes on learning motivation and transfer. Career Dev. Int. 2001, 6, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, M.; Lowell, V.L.; Talafha, A.M.; Harbor, J. Transfer of training, trainee attitudes and best practices in training design: A multiple-case study. TechTrends 2020, 64, 280–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yafi, E.; Tehseen, S.; Haider, S.A. Impact of Green Training on Environmental Performance Through Mediating Role of Competencies and Motivation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Feeney, M.; Grohnert, T.; Gijselaers, W.; Martens, P. Organizations, learning, and sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lundkvist, A.H.; Gustavsson, M. Learning conditions for continuous improvement in a public service organization. J. Work. Learn. 2018, 30, 578–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. Key insights into what makes public organizations learn from training programs. Nord. J. Work. Life Stud. 2022, 12, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rebelo, T.M.; Duarte Gomes, A. conditioning factors of an organizational learning culture. J. Work. Learn. 2011, 23, 173–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moldavanova, A.; Goerdel, H.T. Understanding the puzzle of organizational sustainability: Toward a conceptual framework of organizational social connectedness and sustainability. Public Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 55–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zeemering, E.S. Sustainability management, strategy and reform in local government. Public Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stazyk, E.C.; Moldavanova, A.; Frederickson, H.G. Sustainability, intergenerational social equity, and the socially responsible organization. Adm. Soc. 2014, 48, 655–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elkington, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  40. Martínez-Martínez, A.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G.; Garcia-Perez, A. Sustainability knowledge management and organisational learning in tourism: Current approaches and areas for future development. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stafford-Smith, M.; Griggs, D.; Gaffney, O.; Ullah, F.; Reyers, B.; Kanie, N.; Stigson, B.; Shrivastava, P.; Leach, M.; O’Connell, D. Integration: The key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Osborne, S.P.; Radnor, Z.; Kinder, T.; Vidal, I. The SERVICE Framework: A public-service-dominant approach to sustainable public services. Br. J. Manag. 2015, 26, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Piotrowski, S.; Rosenbloom, D.H.; Kang, S.; Ingrams, A. Levels of value integration in federal agencies’ mission and value statements: Is open government a performance target of U.S. federal agencies? Public Adm. Rev. 2018, 78, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rosenbloom, D.H. Beyond Efficiency: Value frameworks for public administration. Chin. Public Adm. Rev. 2017, 8, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Pot, W.D.; Dewulf, A.; Termeer, C.J.A.M. Governing Long-term policy problems: Dilemmas and strategies at a dutch water authority. Public Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 255–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Public Service Department Official Portal. Available online: https://www.jpa.gov.my/en/ (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  47. Official Portal of Ministry of Finance Malaysia. Available online: http://www.treasury.gov.my/en/ (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  48. Husain, A.A.; Brahim, M. Politik pentadbiran di Malaysia: Penilaian pegawai awam terhadap dasar politik dan kepimpinan nasional. J. Kemanus. 2006, 4, 92–112. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rohman, M.A.; Sabri, A.Z.S.A. Kempen kepimpinan melalui teladan semasa era pemerintahan Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad di Malaysia. Sains Humanika 2017, 9, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 6 Tahun 2005. Dasar Latihan Sumber Manusia Sektor Awam. Available online: https://docs.jpa.gov.my/docs/pekeliling/pp05/bil06/PPbil06.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  51. Husain, A.A. Pembentukan Polisi Awam ke Arah Pemahaman yang Lebih Sistematik dan Analitis; Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn. Bhd: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee, J.Y.; Park, S.; Baker, R. The moderating role of top management support on employees’ attitudes in response to human resource development efforts. J. Manag. Organ. 2018, 24, 369–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 8 Tahun 2010. Panduan Pelaksanaan Pementoran dalam Pengurusan Sumber Manusia Sektor Awam. Available online: https://docs.jpa.gov.my/docs/spp/2010/spp082010.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  54. Løvaas, B.J.; Jungert, T.; Van den Broeck, A.; Haug, H. Does managers’ motivation matter? Exploring the associations between motivation, transformational leadership, and innovation in a religious organization. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2020, 30, 569–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Al-Eisa, A.S.; Furayyan, M.A.; Alhemoud, A.M. An empirical examination of the effects of self-efficacy, supervisor support and motivation to learn on transfer intention. Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 1221–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Martinčić, S.G. The role of motivation in the knowledge transfer of employees. Entren. Enterp. Res. Innov. 2020, 6, 471–481. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dansereau, F.; Graen, G.; Haga, W.J. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1975, 13, 46–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gautam, D.K.; Basnet, D. Organizational culture for training transfer: The mediating role of motivation. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2021, 29, 769–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Park, S.; Kang, H.-S.T.; Kim, E.-J. The role of supervisor support on employees’ training and job performance: An empirical study. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2018, 42, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adams, J.S. Towards an understanding of inequity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1963, 67, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Adams, J.S. Inequity in Social Exchange: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  62. Knowles, M.S. Andragogy in Action; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  63. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 7th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Chichester, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wright, L.L. Qualitative international management research. In Handbook for International Management Research; Punnett, B.J., Shenkar, O., Eds.; Blackwell Publishers Inc: Oxford, UK, 1996; pp. 23–45. [Google Scholar]
  66. Burke, L.A.; Baldwin, T.T. Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect of relapse prevention training and transfer climate. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1999, 38, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tharenou, P. The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2001, 74, 599–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wallace, E.; de Chernatony, L.; Buil, I. Within-role, extra-role and anti-role behaviours in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2011, 29, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Podsakoff, P.M.; Ahearne, M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Lewis, J.R. Multipoint scales: Mean and median differences and observed significance levels. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 1993, 5, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cox, E.P. The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hair, J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  74. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Advances in International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shmueli, G.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ting, H.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2322–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 02322 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical and conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Theoretical and conceptual framework.
Sustainability 15 02322 g001
Sustainability 15 02322 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model.
Figure 2. Structural model.
Sustainability 15 02322 g002
Table
Table 1. Variables measurement.
Table 1. Variables measurement.
ConstructsSub-ConstructsItemsSources
Sustainable Environment TrainingIntrinsic Motivation● Encouraging employees to attend the training program (e.g., permission, instructions)[66,67]
● Showing concern about the skill requirements of tasks
● Being open to discussing training problems
● Encouraging employees to renew existing skills
● Inspiring employees to acquire new knowledge
● Showing concern about participation in training programs
Extrinsic Motivation● Explaining clearly the objectives of training programs[66,67]
● Providing information about training programs
● Suggesting interesting training programs
● Ensuring that training programs are appropriate for the job requirements
● Providing up-to-date training, as required by differing positions
● Providing in advance information related to training opportunities offered (e.g., distribution of training calendars)
Motivation to Learn ● Showing eagerness to learn skills in training sessions[66,67]
● Showing interest in attending organized training programs
● Giving full attention to training content
● Trying to learn as many new approaches as possible in training programs
● Increasing motivation to perform assigned tasks
● Increasing efforts to work more efficiently
● Improving the quality of existing skills
● Producing better work performance
Knowledge Transfer ● Improving employees’ understanding related to tasks (e.g., knowledge sharing)[68,69]
● Mastering knowledge in the workplace effectively
● Applying acquired knowledge systematically
● Adapting knowledge when the situation changes
● Utilizing new knowledge in realizing organizational goals
● Absorbing learned knowledge well
Table
Table 2. Respondents’ profiles.
Table 2. Respondents’ profiles.
Respondents’ ProfilesSub-ProfileFrequencyPercentage
AgeLess than 27 years old8211.0
28 to 33 years old15921.4
34 to 39 years old28037.6
40 to 45 years old14619.6
46 years old and above7710.34
SexMale23932.1
Female50567.8
Services GroupTop Management152.0
Management and Professional32043.0
Support40954.9
Highest EducationPMR40.5
SPM13017.5
STPM20127.0
Bachelor’s Degree25634.4
Master’s Degree13418.0
Doctor of Philosophy192.5
Marriage StatusSingle23131.0
Married51368.9
Table
Table 3. Reflective measurement model evaluation (first level) for the measurement model.
Table 3. Reflective measurement model evaluation (first level) for the measurement model.
Constructs/ItemsOuter LoadingCronbach’s AlphaComposite ReliabilityAVE
Sustainable Environment Training: Intrinsic Motivation
A10.7690.9360.9500.760
A20.883
A30.895
A40.901
A50.905
A60.870
Sustainable Environment Training: Extrinsic Motivation
B10.8810.9400.9520.769
B20.881
B30.901
B40.883
B50.915
B60.797
Motivation to Learn
C10.8660.9570.9640.770
C20.895
C30.878
C40.877
C50.860
C60.867
C70.892
C80.866
Knowledge Transfer
D10.8080.9360.9500.760
D20.884
D30.903
D40.882
D50.899
D60.849
Table
Table 4. Discriminant validity based on HTMT criteria (first level).
Table 4. Discriminant validity based on HTMT criteria (first level).
ConstructsIntrinsic MotivationExtrinsic MotivationTraining Motivation
Intrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic Motivation0.885
Motivation to Learn0.7030.734
Knowledge Transfer0.6410.6280.681
Table
Table 5. Formative measurement model evaluation (second stage).
Table 5. Formative measurement model evaluation (second stage).
ConstructsSub-ConstructsConvergent ValidityOuter Weight t-Values Weights VIF
Sustainable Environment TrainingIntrinsic Motivation0.8300.4787.0713.261
Extrinsic Motivation0.5678.4023.261
Table
Table 6. Basic statistical analysis.
Table 6. Basic statistical analysis.
ConstructsMeanStd. Deviation
Intrinsic Motivation5.7250.844
Extrinsic Motivation5.6530.893
Motivation to Learn5.5900.857
Knowledge Transfer5.8670.725
Table
Table 7. Outcomes of testing hypotheses H1–H4.
Table 7. Outcomes of testing hypotheses H1–H4.
Hypothesesβ-Valuest-Valuesp-ValuesResult
H1: Intrinsic motivation is associated with knowledge transfer.0.238*** 4.1640.000Accepted
H2: Extrinsic motivation is associated with knowledge transfer.0.1001.6910.000Not Accepted
H3: Intrinsic motivation is associated with motivation to learn.0.288*** 5.1760.092Accepted
H4: Extrinsic motivation is associated with motivation to learn.0.457*** 8.2580.000Accepted
Note: Significance Level: *** t > 3.29 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 8. Outcomes of testing hypotheses H5 and H6.
Table 8. Outcomes of testing hypotheses H5 and H6.
Hypothesesβ-Valuesp-Valuest-Values
H5: Motivation to learn mediates the relationship between intrinsic motivation and knowledge transfer.0.1200.000*** 4.444
H6: Motivation to learn mediates the relationship between extrinsic motivation and knowledge transfer. 0.1910.000*** 6.370
Note: Significance Level: *** t > 3.29 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 9. IPMA analysis.
Table 9. IPMA analysis.
ConstructsKnowledge Transfer
Total EffectPerformances
Intrinsic Motivation0.30677.988
Extrinsic Motivation0.23575.233
Motivation to Learn0.35372.974
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohamad, N.I.; Mokhtar, A.; Rahman, I.A.; Othman, A.S. Development of a Structural Model for Sustainable Environment Training and Knowledge Transfer. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032322

AMA Style

Mohamad NI, Mokhtar A, Rahman IA, Othman AS. Development of a Structural Model for Sustainable Environment Training and Knowledge Transfer. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032322

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohamad, Nur Izzaty, Aminudin Mokhtar, Ishak Abd Rahman, and Abdullah Sanusi Othman. 2023. "Development of a Structural Model for Sustainable Environment Training and Knowledge Transfer" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032322

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop