Evaluating the effectiveness of training of managerial and non-managerial bank employees using Kirkpatrick's model for evaluation of training

The study addresses how training can be effectively evaluated in the Indian banking sector amid challenges from deregulation, demonetization, digitalization, and bank consolidation. Training is essential for aligning employee growth with organizational goals and for equipping staff with skills for evolving banking services (e.g., e-banking). Given limited resources and rising expectations, banks must implement systematic training and robust evaluation. Kirkpatrick’s four-level model offers a comprehensive approach to assess reactions, learning, behavior, and results. The research question is whether data from banking-sector training supports the use of Kirkpatrick’s model for evaluation. Objectives: (O1) examine how employee reactions affect learning, how learning affects behavior, and how behavior influences results; (O2) analyze the impact of training separately on managerial vs. non-managerial employees; (O3) create a model to guide training improvements for both levels based on the reaction→learning→behavior→results chain.

Prior work defines training evaluation as the systematic review of descriptive and judgmental data for training decisions. Kirkpatrick’s model has remained a benchmark across sectors for over five decades. Studies applying the model report improvements in knowledge, skills, behavior transfer, and organizational outcomes across domains such as biotechnology, aquaculture, education, health, aviation, and banking. Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has been used to assess learning and performance from financial, customer, internal process, and growth (social and environmental) perspectives, and its adoption has improved bank performance in other contexts. Evidence suggests evaluation becomes more challenging at higher levels of the model; nevertheless, comprehensive evaluation is critical for assessing training ROI and organizational impact. In banking, literature encourages moving beyond ad hoc training towards integrated, systematic cultures of training and evaluation, highlighting the need to link training to change drivers (digitalization, demonetization, consolidation) and job enrichment.

Design: Quantitative, cross-sectional survey using a structured questionnaire. Target population: Employees of public, private, and foreign banks in India. Sample: 402 respondents (public 66%, private 28%, foreign 6%) from banks including Axis, PNB, SIDBI, IDBI, Yes Bank, J&K Bank, Canara, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab Gramin Bank, Syndicate Bank, SBI. Roles included branch heads, assistant managers, regional heads, senior managers, associates, probationary officers, clerks, chief managers. Respondents were categorized as managerial vs. non-managerial. Measures/constructs: Kirkpatrick levels operationalized as (L1) Reactions to training (on-the-job, off-the-job, special training); (L2) Learning assessed via BSC perspectives (financial, customer, internal business process, growth – social and environmental); (L3) Behavioral changes in response to banking change drivers (digitalization, demonetization, consolidation of banks, job enrichment); (L4) Results (employee motivation and bank performance). Items showed acceptable reliability and validity. Analysis: PLS-SEM used due to prediction focus and distribution considerations. Measurement model assessed via Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), AVE, Fornell–Larcker criterion, HTMT ratios, and VIF. Structural model tested hypothesized paths across levels separately for managerial and non-managerial groups. Significance assessed through bootstrapping with t-statistics and p-values.

- Measurement model adequacy (managerial): Cronbach’s alpha 0.748–0.915; CR 0.868–0.940; AVE 0.623–0.799; discriminant validity supported by Fornell–Larcker and HTMT (<0.90); all outer VIF <3. - Measurement model adequacy (non-managerial): Cronbach’s alpha 0.805–0.923; CR 0.873–0.945; AVE 0.637–0.914; discriminant validity and VIF criteria met. - Training type reactions (H1): Differences by training form supported in both groups. Managerial: outer loadings—on-the-job 0.914, off-the-job 0.911, special 0.747. Non-managerial: on-the-job 0.880, off-the-job 0.921, special 0.724. Off-the-job training weighed more for non-managers; on-the-job relatively stronger for managers; special training lowest in both—an area needing emphasis. - Learning perspectives (H2): All four BSC perspectives loaded strongly. Managerial: 0.837–0.920. Non-managerial: 0.879–0.915. - Reactions → Learning (H3): Managerial β=0.663 (T=14.366; p<0.001); Non-managerial β=0.589 (T=14.058; p<0.001). - Learning → Behavior (H5): Managerial β=0.793 (T=21.931; p<0.001); Non-managerial β=0.711 (T=17.485; p<0.001). - Behavior → Results (H6): Managerial β=0.856 (T=35.409; p<0.001); Non-managerial β=0.757 (T=20.302; p<0.001). - Total effects (examples): Managerial—Reactions→Behavior 0.526; Reactions→Results 0.450; Learning→Results 0.679. Non-managerial—Reactions→Behavior 0.419; Reactions→Results 0.317; Learning→Results 0.539 (all p<0.001). - R² (explained variance): Managerial—Learning 0.440 (adj. 0.437), Behavior 0.628 (adj. 0.626), Results 0.733 (adj. 0.732). Non-managerial—Learning 0.347 (adj. 0.344), Behavior 0.506 (adj. 0.503), Results 0.573 (adj. 0.571). - Behavioral indicators: Job enrichment and digitalization loaded higher; demonetization and consolidation loaded lower, indicating areas where employees (particularly non-managerial) require more targeted training. Overall: All four Kirkpatrick levels are interlinked; training positively influences learning, which improves behavior, driving employee motivation and bank performance. Effects are stronger for managerial employees.

Findings confirm the Kirkpatrick chain: reactions to training drive learning; learning drives behavioral change; behavior enhances results. This supports the model’s applicability to banking, showing that well-designed training contributes to employee motivation and bank performance. Differences between managerial and non-managerial cohorts suggest the same evaluation framework applies to both but with varying magnitudes: managers exhibit stronger linkages and higher explained variance, likely reflecting greater experience, role complexity, and opportunity to apply learning. The content emphasis matters: off-the-job training is valued more by non-managers, while managers benefit strongly from on-the-job learning; special training is underweighted in both groups yet is critical for navigating sectoral change drivers (digitalization, demonetization, consolidation). Learning assessed via BSC perspectives demonstrates that training translates into multi-dimensional performance understanding, which then manifests as behavioral adaptability to banking sector disruptions, ultimately improving organizational outcomes.

This study develops and tests a PLS-SEM model based on Kirkpatrick’s four levels to evaluate training effectiveness for managerial and non-managerial employees in Indian banks. It demonstrates that reactions, learning, behavior, and results are significantly interlinked, with stronger effects for managerial staff. The model highlights the need to bolster special training and to align training content with sectoral change drivers. Contributions include: (1) one of the earliest applications of Kirkpatrick’s full model to the Indian banking sector; (2) a comparative evaluation across managerial levels; and (3) empirical evidence linking training to employee motivation and bank performance via behavioral change. Future research should expand samples, compare across bank types (public vs private vs foreign), conduct bank-specific analyses, and design industry-specific evaluation models to refine training strategies and enhance performance.

- Sample size limited to 402 respondents; broader and stratified samples could improve generalizability. - Aggregated analysis across multiple banks; bank-by-bank evaluations were not conducted. - Differences across public, private, and foreign banks were not deeply compared. - Cross-sectional design limits causal inference beyond modeled paths; longitudinal assessments of transfer and sustainability of behavior change are needed. - Special training content and delivery variations were not detailed; future studies could experimentally compare training formats and modules targeting change drivers.