As we continue to broaden the scope of what falls under the "total rewards" umbrella, one of the areas of the employment relationship that comes under consideration is learning and development.
We had a brief, but thought-provoking, discussion about this topic in our recent Compensation Cafe holiday podcast (about 22 minutes into the session). Can learning and development really be considered forms of compensation? Will people accept training and growth opportunities in lieu of more money - particularly as the economy grows stronger?
The group's take: Perhaps ... but if and only if learning and development opportunities are linked to the ability to advance within the organization.
There is evidence to support this conclusion in research conducted by Towers Watson (the 2010 Towers Watson Global Workforce Study), as recently covered by a Trend Alert issued by The Herman Group.
...it is always valuable to see the disparity between employer and employee views of "reasons to join a firm". In ranked order of importance (most to least), the reasons employees gave were competitive base pay, challenging work, and convenient, and opportunities for career advancement. On the other hand the ranking from employers was somewhat different. They agreed that most important (these days) was competitive base pay, however they followed with reputation of the organization as a great place to work, challenging work, and business/industry of the organization.
The fact that "opportunities to learn new skills" does not even appear of the employees' view is very interesting. What we now see is employees' impatience to have career advancement without learning the new skills they may need.
There is a little tension apparent here. On the one hand, we have the New Deal touted by Towers Watson in its study, where one of the three core building blocks for the new employment relationship is "Fostering Self-Reliance". Here, employers strive to "enable employees to build their own skills, plan for their own financial future and live healthy lives - active security versus passive security."
On the other hand, we have employees letting us know that opportunities for career advancement are both important and something they expect their employers of choice to provide ... perhaps even aside and apart from any skill development obligation on their part.
As is often the case, I suspect that the smart employer will adapt a stance of balance in this regard. While we should not allow employees to abdicate responsibility for their own careers, neither can we dodge responsibility for providing sufficient information and support to enable them to do so. Smart employers will cut through the murkiness that often surrounds this topic, defining meaningful career paths and realistic advancement opportunities, along with the skill and development requirements necessary to pursue them.
What's your take on the question? Learning and advancement: Are they an employee reward, an employer obligation ... or a little of both?
As a former T&D manager, I'd say that learning and advancement can be a reward or an obligation or both. It is situational.
In uniformed professions, it's traditionally both but mostly an obligation. First responders (whether military, health, entertainment, or other) require continual proficiency training, practice, new tradecraft learning and KSA enhancements to stay on top of their game. Note "entertainment" is included, for learning is vital for sports performers, musicians, actors, etc., for their professional growth, too.
There are few fields of work so static that learning (sometimes "education" and frequently other elements like practicing rarely-required skills, working on a task force, being exposed to new aspects, or mentoring) is not required at all but is a perquisite. It is a reward in many places. A few organizations are training grounds for people who leave to advance elsewhere: like the Navy is for nuclear power technicans, where their mission-required KSAs translate quite well to the more relaxed civilian applications where their learning curve tends to drop although their advancement potential may rise.
After all, "advancement" need not be HERE. I've worked places where I did it for the learning experience, to build my credentials to be leveraged elsewhere. In such cases, learning was the primary compensation element. The canny employer understands worker expectations and strives to provide the right mix of learning opportunities that are force multipliers for instant effectiveness and which maximize upward mobility and lateral flexibility HERE, while reducing inducements to apply the learning elsewhere. Those learning methods include coaching, staff meetings, job rotation, temporary fill-in assignments, individual projects, task forces, classroom training, reading, teaching, counseling, and off-job volunteer activities.
Learning can be for now or for the future, for here or for there. A steel pourer trained in basket weaving won't advance at the steel furnace due to that new skill, but a slubber doffer at a fabric mill might apply that art for a promotion.
Sorry, didn't mean to go off in a riff, but this IS important and generally not well thought out.
Posted by: E. James (Jim) Brennan | December 23, 2010 at 11:11 AM
I definitely agree that there is not the incentive to learn and be trained if advancement in the organization is not possible.
Posted by: Sara Kmiecik | December 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Intriguing post Ann! I think you are right that employers must find a state a balance between their obligation to employees (and their own bottom line) to help them grow and the tendency for training and development opportunities to be seen as a form of reward by employees. However, I often advice my coaching clients that they must take ownership of their own professional development and that their are many ways to grow and advance one's career outside the confines of work.
I have included your post in my Rainmaker 'Fab Five' blog picks of the week (http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2010/12/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-2.html) to let my readers onto this interesting topic.
Be well!
Posted by: Chris Young | December 27, 2010 at 07:55 AM
Jim:
Good points, all. Like you, I have also made career choices and taken positions based on the opportunity to learn things that could only be leveraged elsewhere, down the line, in yet another gig. I'm glad I did. And, as is so often true, the answer to the question I pose is indeed situational.
Sara:
Thanks for the comment. I hear you - and I know many would agree. However, to Jim's point earlier, I think employes do themselves a disservice if they only consider learning and development opportunities that have a short-term payoff (in terms of advancement) in their current organization. Life is too uncertain to focus our personal growth only on the opportunities in our immediate employment environment.
Chris:
Always an honor to be featured in the Rainmaker "Fab Five" - thanks a lot! Readers, be sure to check out the other great posts that Chris has featured this week - lots of great insights.
Posted by: Ann Bares | December 27, 2010 at 08:18 AM