A Training Approach That Should Make the Bean Counters Happy

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc

Whether out of indifference or lack of awareness, it is an unspoken truth that more and more employers have been neglecting their role in worker development lately. Investments in related technical instruction are being pushed to the back burner by ever growing emphasis on meeting quarterly numbers; the push for greater output and profits to meet shareholder expectations which seems to perpetually increase. Classes and online content have always been seen by accounting as costs that can be put-off for a later date that, now, never seems to come.

The more important on-the-job training (the informal transfer of task best practice and expertise) is squeezed in if and when time allows (which is in short supply) by whoever is available – this in an age of Lean and continuous improvement. If employers are waiting for someone else to train their workers to 100% mastery of their unique tasks, on their unique equipment for their unique processes, well that is just wishful thinking.

The contradictions are alarming, and many times middle managers and upper management of corporate-run or private equity managed enterprises are caught in the middle. They know the risks of neglecting training and they see the results first-hand, but have little say in the matter or are afraid of getting caught up in a “cost v. benefit” discussion with people that seem to live in a different world and have made up their mind before the discussion begins. When capacity deteriorates or the siren’s call of cheaper labor markets prevails, someone makes the decision to move the entire operation to a location where training is even more difficult but can be absorbed due to offsetting wage discounts – that is until wages rise and total cost of ownership is understood.

“The decision to not invest in driving each employee to full job mastery – making sure all company employees have mastered the best practice of every task for which they were hired – is akin to investing in a costly NC machine and using it to sharpen your pencils. The return on the investment is not realized, so it starts to look like pure cost. Magnify this by tens or hundreds of employees and there is no doubt of the folly.”

If employers do decide to host related technical instruction, they tend to gravitate toward classroom or online training solutions since they seem more familiar. They settle on local institutional instruction providers and private vendors by finding what they think is a close fit, yet they and the end-users are often underwhelmed by out-of-date or unrelated content that weakens their credibility and makes them reluctant to ask for permission to host another. It has always been difficult to show how related technical instruction and courses “du jour” translated into improvement in a worker’s performance – expressed by the attendees and those who sent them through the class.

Employers are buoyed by the belief that on-the-job, task-based training seems to be going on in one form or another all around them – even if they cannot explain it, measure it, document it and improve it. To a degree they are right; work gets done and products and services reach the customer. In an age of tight budgets and cynical accountants and shareholders, getting it wrong again is not an option. So the temptation is to accept this reality as the only choice, not ask for additional resources (from individuals who discourage the mere request) to maximize worker potential and, in doing so, the bottom line.

If designed and implemented right, structured on-the-job training, especially Proactive Technologies’ accelerated transfer of expertise™, is the easiest to justify by the potential increase in worker capacity, work quality and quantity, by the effortless increase in compliance with ISO/AS/IATF quality programs and OSHA, by the measurable and documented return on worker investment and by the declining training cost per trainee.

A structured on-the-job training infrastructure is easier to set up and implement than might by thought if done right. Many of the components are already there, so structuring the unstructured builds on what is familiar and useful. If ad hoc and informal on-the-job training was going on anyway, then structuring it to make it more accurate, efficient and purposeful has to be a return on investment from the “get-go.” Having structure to accelerate, document, measure and improve the transfer of worker expertise adds to the returns. Providing documentation to support compliance with ISO/AS/IATF quality programs and OSHA mitigates the risk of noncompliance and litigation – even more return. And if you have similar job classifications across multiple locations, the returns due to “customized standardization” escalate.

To have a better shot at pitching to management and accountants why training will have a better outcome this time, what deficiencies it will address and what returns on investment can be expected,  seriously consider the structured on-the-job training, systems approach. Discussing academic theory to hardened managers has become very difficult since many have turned out to be just that; academic theory. Drilling down on real-world examples of waste and under-utilization of workers with a solution that seems directly suited to affect this has a better chance for a successful decision and outcomes that reinforce the choice made.

Michael Collins wrote about “corporate tunnel vision”  in an article in IndustryWeek entitled “How Financialization Is Starving Manufacturing”saying that short-termism has made manufacturing companies focus an inordinate amount of time, attention and resources on immediate gains at the expense of long-term, sustainable growth. This applies to worker development, too.

“Financialization has also reduced the investment in long-term programs like apprentice training. I define long-term training as journeyman training that takes thousands (not hundreds) of hours. Even though manufacturing suffers from a critical shortage of high-skilled workers, corporations do not want to invest in long-term training because the ROI is too low,” comments Collins.

Financialization, over the last three decades, has moved the targets as well. We have all heard it said on business channels, “Good news for Wall Street, Company A is laying off 15,000 employees,” or “Company B’s stock has soared on word that it is closing production in the U.S. and moving it offshore.” How can any potential employee plan even 2 years of education that they think may start them on a career path in a target job classification when the job is moved in year 1? How can educational institutions and workforce development agencies be expected to help ensure the labor force is always full if no one can guess which jobs will be around from year to year? How can technical instruction providers be able to maintain strong, relevant content of their courses if, in addition to rapidly changing technology, they have to keep an eye on if the targeted job will even be around. If investors are going to fuel this volatility, then what is left of their companies have to play a lead role in training workers or the rest is just a national kabuki dance.

Sure, there are a few employers that are taking advantage of the government’s push for increasing apprenticeships, backed with grants, but there are many, many more that wouldn’t consider improving training efforts even with grant money which leads others to question their priorities, commitment and motives for doing so. More companies seem to be satisfied with whatever is being done about worker training as long as they meet quotas and shipments this month. Little concern is shown for the loss of that even one critical worker – with all their technical expertise – would have on the overall operation and for meeting monthly goals for this and the coming months.

Those “visionary” leaders in the company that do worry about this and want to do something about it are often shot down if an investment is required. Training, no matter how direct and purposeful, has been historically labeled by accountants as a cost, not understanding the difference between “learning” and “training.” Unfortunately too many educational institutions and training providers feed into that stereotype with irrelevant and outdated content. Nevertheless, a one-off training class on core skills with no discernable connection to improving performance of tasks required of the job classification, and fails to define the return on investment and measures of successful performance improvement, fuels skeptics to pass and the unknowing to proceed but be disappointed with the results. Above all, if the target job classification hasn’t been job/task analyzed. there are no metrics, no measures and no way to tell if there is an impact or not.

With such an entrenched misconception of the value of worker development by accountants and investors, that make managers unwilling to even bring up the need and concerns for the neglect, it is difficult to get companies to even take a look at an alternative more in line with their thinking. But the PROTECH© system of managed human resource development is a proven approach that increases worker capacity, work quality and quantity and compliance (ISO/AS/IATF and OSHA) while lowering the internal costs of training, as well as incidence of malperformance and litigation from non-compliance. The investment is small and the returns are large and measurable. And if accountants and investors took a minute they would embrace the logic; if those managers that need a solution to worker under-capacity took a minute to learn more, they may be able to muster up the courage to make a case to management. Those that take a few minutes to see what this approach is about seem re-energized and confident to make the pitch.

The decision to not invest in driving each employee to full job mastery – making sure all company employees have mastered the best practice of every task for which they were hired – is akin to investing in a costly NC machine and using it to sharpen your pencils. The return on the investment is not realized, so it starts to look like pure cost. Magnify this by tens or hundreds of employees and there is no doubt of the folly.

If you see the need to develop your workers but are afraid to take your concern to management, seriously consider going with the structured on-the-job training first. If you do no more than set up a deliberate system of on-the-job training, you are 90 percent of the way towards your goal. You can always follow-up with pitches to management for related technical instruction but with a better definition and empirical evidence of how the course will improve performance and provide a track record of success.

If you would like to know how Proactive Technologies’ structured on-the-job training system approach might work at your firm, or your firms, contact a Proactive Technologies representative today to schedule a GoToMeeting videoconference briefing to your computer. This can be followed up with an onsite presentation for you and your colleagues. A 13-minute promo briefing is available at the Proactive Technologies website and provides an overview to get you started and to help you explain it to your staff. Taking 45 minutes of your time seems fair to learn more about the worker development approach you have said you wish you had.