Training transfer of cross-cultural capabilities: an interactionist study of capability–climate substitutability

Purpose This study aims to examine how post-training transfer of complex, judgment-intensive, cross-cultural capabilities is shaped by interactions between individual capability (Cultural Intelligence, Global Mindset) and organizational transfer climate. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative scales and open-ended prompts were administered to 138 alumni of global leadership programs, who were assessed 6–12 months post-training. Hierarchical regression tested direct and interaction effects, bootstrapped mediation examined the indirect CQ–transfer pathway, and thematic analysis illustrated application mechanisms. Findings Global Mindset (β = 0.29, p < 0.01) and Transfer Climate (β = 0.21, p < 0.001) directly predicted the transfer. A significant negative interaction (CQ × TC: β = −0.26, p < 0.001) is consistent with capability–climate substitutability: high transfer climate support reduced CQ’s marginal contribution. CQ had a significant indirect effect on transfer through self-efficacy (βindirect = 0.09, p = 0.042). Qualitative themes illustrated reflective adaptation, confidence building and informal digital learning Research limitations/implications The cross-sectional design limits causal inference, and self-reported measures may influence effect sizes. Practical implications Differentiate post-training support: strong climates compensate for developing capability, while high-capability learners transfer effectively with moderate support; embed reflection; leverage digital peer platforms; measure transfer behaviorally at 6–12 months. Originality/value The principal theoretical contribution is the identification of capability-climate substitutability as an explanation for training transfer in cross-cultural leadership development. Rather than treating trainee capability and organizational support as independent, additive predictors, the findings suggest that they can serve overlapping transfer-enabling functions, such that the marginal contribution of one diminishes when the other is strongly present. This reframes the central question in training-transfer theory from how much individual capability and organizational support are present to whether they perform distinct or overlapping transfer-enabling functions.