Unfortunately this type of training is like advertising- a good chunk of the money spent on it is wasted, but they can never figure out where or how large the percentage is (or needs to be). But we still have, and even live by, advertising.
You can't say it never worked even once for a trainee. It probably works with some of them. But for some it also kills productivity and incentivizes job flight when your trainees could be working productively and enjoying their jobs.
It's a bit like the death penalty- say for the sake of argument that having a death penalty on the books, in locale X, deters 10% of all murders there. Is 10% enough to call it a deterrent or not?
In terms of my personal experience, I learned some things in the compulsory sessions I've had to attend in various workplaces, but I don't suspect I'd ever have been a problem to my employers without them. A few people I've sat next to in this training still "offended" even after attending (or signing in then leaving) the courses.
In the end, I suspect it's mostly a cost-saving CYA measure, which mitigates damages when the company is inevitably taken to court ("You mean to say, Ms. HR director, that you never created a mandatory training program, not even a handbook?" "This is why, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client deserves 3x $50M instead of $50M, for the horrors he/she had to endure working at company X")
It's more than perception- if I had been called into unscheduled one-on-ones with management about incidents that happened, even where I feel like I did nothing wrong, that's a data point that matters. No one-on-ones after 25 years in industry, at least related to what you'd get training for, is a data set that you can rely on.
Imagine job training which is mandatory for staff but skipped by the upper-level executives, when it was one of their incidents that kicked off the whole reaction. Also imagine it is conducted in a very haphazard, incompetent, and counterproductive manner. One day a week for months, on all kinds of topics. Your deliverables schedule is not reduced but rather accelerated to make it even less enjoyable.
Anecdata is great, but those leaving (or avoiding) jobs that have that kind of managerial incompetence don't answer the surveys as "too much job training" even if that's what it was. There's no upside to making that your lead reason.
It has traditionally been about mitigating legal damages. In more recent years, it is being done for additional reasons: mitigate bad PR, reduce churn and for increasing diversity.
Comments
Unfortunately this type of training is like advertising- a good chunk of the money spent on it is wasted, but they can never figure out where or how large the percentage is (or needs to be). But we still have, and even live by, advertising.
You can't say it never worked even once for a trainee. It probably works with some of them. But for some it also kills productivity and incentivizes job flight when your trainees could be working productively and enjoying their jobs.
It's a bit like the death penalty- say for the sake of argument that having a death penalty on the books, in locale X, deters 10% of all murders there. Is 10% enough to call it a deterrent or not?
In terms of my personal experience, I learned some things in the compulsory sessions I've had to attend in various workplaces, but I don't suspect I'd ever have been a problem to my employers without them. A few people I've sat next to in this training still "offended" even after attending (or signing in then leaving) the courses.
In the end, I suspect it's mostly a cost-saving CYA measure, which mitigates damages when the company is inevitably taken to court ("You mean to say, Ms. HR director, that you never created a mandatory training program, not even a handbook?" "This is why, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client deserves 3x $50M instead of $50M, for the horrors he/she had to endure working at company X")
I mean you can honestly believe this and at the same time someone has a completely different perception of you.
I've never heard of anyone leaving a job due to job training. I've heard and seen plenty leave due to a lack of it.
It's more than perception- if I had been called into unscheduled one-on-ones with management about incidents that happened, even where I feel like I did nothing wrong, that's a data point that matters. No one-on-ones after 25 years in industry, at least related to what you'd get training for, is a data set that you can rely on.
Imagine job training which is mandatory for staff but skipped by the upper-level executives, when it was one of their incidents that kicked off the whole reaction. Also imagine it is conducted in a very haphazard, incompetent, and counterproductive manner. One day a week for months, on all kinds of topics. Your deliverables schedule is not reduced but rather accelerated to make it even less enjoyable.
Anecdata is great, but those leaving (or avoiding) jobs that have that kind of managerial incompetence don't answer the surveys as "too much job training" even if that's what it was. There's no upside to making that your lead reason.
I've seen lots of people quit because a company is too stuffy/sterile/formal.
I agree about the CYA measure, but it seems the people that need the training the most are also the ones that never leave.
It has traditionally been about mitigating legal damages. In more recent years, it is being done for additional reasons: mitigate bad PR, reduce churn and for increasing diversity.