Employee Training · Building Teams

Why companies don't train employees anymore?

Sahedi Khan Internet Marketing Executive & Web Developer

December 8th, 2016

Some economists cite structural factors as to the reason why unemployment has persisted at these elevated levels around 10%. By structural they basically mean job mismatch: workers who have skills in one area are in surplus even though there are jobs in demand, though they require a different set of skills. One way to rectify this predicament is to have firms more willing to expand their applicant pool and train those they do hire for those jobs.

It has become common wisdom in hiring that firms would rather leave a position unfilled than recruit someone who didn't fit the job requirements. A new hire must hit the ground running so-to-speak and therefore he should not expect much handholding on the part of the employer. So, if you are not a perfect match and can't already do everything stated in the job description, don't expect to get a call back.

I wonder why this move away from on-the-job training has taken place. It used to be that companies would accept a wider range of applicants after screening for basic intelligence, competence, and ability. They would take their new recruits and train them for upwards of several months. After successfully completing the training, the new employees would be ready to take their place alongside their fellow co-workers.

This training not only produced better employees, it also engendered more loyalty as workers could see the firm invest time and money into them and would reciprocate with their work effort.

Now, it seems like most companies give new employees at most a few days to become acclimated with them and most of that time involves processing employment paperwork for the new worker. Since, the worker cannot expect to be trained by the firm in any meaningful way, one shouldn't expect much loyalty from him should a better opportunity arise.

One reason given as to why firms have reduced their training is because they fear that after investing in the worker, he might just bolt to a competitor which may reward him with better pay because it didn't have to budget for training.

However, to take that POV, you must assume that workers are only satisfied by more money, when there are multiple factors that workers take into consideration when deciding on where to work, including how the firm treats them initially.

What are your thoughts on the above and what is this new trend that we are experiencing?

Davida Shensky We help small to medium size companies put together a strategy for success and hold you accountable to follow through

December 8th, 2016

Companies have done more outsourcing to cut their expenses in the HR dept. and they also incorporate more E-Learning so staff doesn't have as much down time and loss from work

Dane Madsen Organizational and Operational Strategy Consultant

December 9th, 2016

Training is considered all overhead. I rarely see the objection that you can invest in training an employee that then leave soon there after, but that is rare and if true, usually a failure somewhere else. In a perfect world you hire fully trained people but here on earth that is a pipe dream.  However, thinking you can put people in a room for days or weeks and have them ready for the front line is also a pipe dream. Between the two is active, ongoing training.  The basic requirements for the role are available and plentiful so hiring a person that does not meet those is counterproductive. In that case, it is better to not fill the role than to introduce a total green employee to it. All new people should be trained on the basics of the company and product hiring sales people that do not know how to sell, or tech people that cannot code, or any other minimum capability is not going to happen. We have always trained as part of a larger agenda, not a specific training program. Ultimately, the best training is on the job.