Keeping Employers Engaged in Regional Workforce Development Projects

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

Billions of dollars have been spent on workforce development projects funded by the state and federal governments in the last 20-30 years. However, from the tone of the discussions surrounding workforce development projects and participants today, it seems that the same things that were troubling employers in 1980 are still troubling them today.

Getting an employer to sign up for a grant-funded workforce development project should not be that difficult, if the brands and reputations of the institutions promoting the project are sound, and the project concept appears logical, achievable and will in all likelihood contribute to the employer’s business model. But once the pitch has been made to the employers and the bold outcomes projected, keeping the employers engaged for the duration of the project and beyond can be difficult.

One thing that I have found in setting up and maintaining long-term projects is making sure the person, or people, at the initial meeting are the right ones. “Worker development” seems to fall within the domain of the employer’s human resources department. But not all human resources managers are the same. Some are fresh from college and may not yet have experience with concepts such as meaningful on-the-job training, integration of worker training with ISO/IATF/AS compliance, etc. Some tend to be generalists and may enthusiastically agree with a project concept but are out-of-sync with their production and quality manager’s view of the world. While you may be able to get the human resources manager on-board, the human resources manager may not reflect the interest or concerns of the more influential production or operations management and staff.

Unfortunately, this may not be discovered until months into a project. If the operation’s management and staff were briefed on the project (sometimes they are not), out of deference to the human resources manager the other key stakeholders may not voice concerns or ask pertinent questions that may influence the nature of the project. This may later start to percolate up and bring the organization’s participation in the project to a halt.

If there is a requirement for employer contributions (in-kind and/or cash) to the project, lack of support from the operational management and staff may allow concerned accountants to cause the organization to withdraw. This often occurs when there is no one internally to defend the project’s purpose and explain how the organization will benefit from continuing. A sweeping, irreversible decision to withdraw from a project is justified by the need to address more pressing issues and spending, whether true or not.

The primary determinants of whether operational management and staff will want to be strong partners and advocates in a workforce development project are:

1. does the project’s design seem logical and achievable;
2. if the project’s goals are achieved, does the organization clearly see how they will benefit from participating in the project;
3. do any benefits from participating far surpass any effort and cost to the employer;
4. does the organization’s decision-makers view an opportunity cost in not participating.

This is the first hurdle for getting an employer to sign up for a project. For some projects, this is a difficult hurdle to overcome. What may seem as a worthy workforce development project from an educational institution or workforce development agency’s perspective may not be viewed the same by an employer. Subsequently, some projects are started with only a few employer partners, if any, and hope that the project can attract more employers later – often proven not to be the case.

If the workforce development project is successful in signing up employers, feedback has to be frequent and ongoing, and clearly show that progress toward the project’s goals is being achieved in order to keep the employers engaged. Waiting five years to realize any projected benefits from participating does not provide comfort to organizations that are used to monthly and quarterly metrics. The project might have been able to gain initial support, but that support should always be considered “conditional.” One reason is that once the project starts, the employers often have some in the group that are trying to convince them that participation was a bad idea. As time advances and the feedback – anecdotal or empirical – is thin or non-existent, those voices begin to multiply and amplify. The employer’s representatives that obligated the employer to the project may succumb to the overwhelming negativity and decide to withdraw from the project or ignore the project until it goes away.

The most unfortunate outcome of promoting a project that seems irrelevant from the beginning, or initially showed a glimmer of promise but even that did not materialize, is that the brands of those associated with promoting the project are forever tarnished. Losing the business community’s trust can be hard to overcome later for even the most brilliant of projects designed and funding for the project is 100%. Taking the time to design a workforce development project from the employer’s perspective up may increase the possibility that the project, with all of its partners, will sustain itself long past the depletion of the grant funding and even attract new employer partners once any perceived risk in joining the project is negated.

Read more about Proactive Technologies’ projects – some lasting now for over 22 years – or about Proactive Technologies’ approach to workforce development and Proactive Technologies’ workforce development projects.

Attend one of the scheduled online presentations to learn more.