The relationship between training and small firm performance: research frameworks and lost quests

DEAN PATTON IS PRINCIPAL LECTURER in corporate strategy, Sue Marlow is principal lecturer in industrial relations, and Paul Hannon is academic director at the Leicestershire Centre for Enterprise, all at de Montfort University, England. In recent years it has been acknowledged that the take-up of training and development opportunities within the United Kingdom has been generally poor and that this has had a detrimental effect upon national productivity and competitiveness (Keep and Mayhew, 1997). It is noticeable that smaller firms in particular are reluctant to engage with formal training initiatives regardless of the incentives offered (Maton, 1999; Jennings and Hawley, 1996; Stanworth and Gray, 1992). To support greater take-up of such initiatives, policymakers and academics have sought to find a relationship between training and the performance of firms. The extant literature on this subject is inconclusive and a number of criticisms have been made witlh reference to the research design and methodology employed (Westhead and Storey, 1997). This paper proposes that a more focused research design to the subject is required and puts forward a model that would address many of the concerns raised (Westhead, 1996; Westhead and Storey, 1997). It is suggested that the search for statistical significance may actually be inappropriate, given the number of variables in the relationship. The model would, however, provide a framework within which the importance and interaction of such variables can be more clearly analysed and evaluated.