Appreciating the Value of Labor – Often Overlooked Source of Wealth

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Businesses invest capital in new equipment or processes to expand and improve operations, and to become or remain competitive. The level of investment is not as important as the return on that investment. This consistent practice of determining where to best place capital for the highest return should apply to labor, as well. What is “paid” for labor is not as relevant as the value it adds to the operation and, ultimately, profit; the return on worker investment.

The lack of appreciation for the difference between a “training cost” and a “training investment” is understandable because it is rarely contrasted. The college textbook entitled Financial Accounting: An Introduction to Concepts, Methods and Uses, defines “direct labor cost” as the “Cost of labor (material) applied and assigned directly to a product; contrast this with indirect labor cost.” Indirect labor cost” is defined as, “An indirect cost of labor (material) such as supervisors (supplies).” There is no mention of an expected return on investment. Generations of cost accountants have been taught that there is no good that comes for higher labor costs, which to them is determined by the level of staffing and wage levels. There is no differentiation between strategic labor costs and uncontrolled labor costs.

The profit from, and value of, most worker’s labor comes from task-based work, so all inputs that drive workers to high-performance, high-capacity output are investments.

As discussed in many articles in past issues of the Proactive Technologies Report™, although labor costs are considered direct costs from an accounting standpoint, they should be more importantly considered as an investment in the operation’s overall level of competitiveness. Operations may vary as to the level of return on investment from labor, but each worker’s cumulative expertise gained while employed becomes an asset to the operation akin to intellectual property and, therefore, wages and compensation paid to develop a worker are an investment.

As many operation managers have found out, drastic moves like reducing or maintaining low wage rates, while expecting to maintain the same output quantity and quality, chases off the workers with the gained technical expertise…because they can leave. The investment is lost and so are any returns. Furthermore, it is difficult to find new candidates who are willing and able to “hit the ground running” for an unreasonably low wage rate. And if a good candidate for employment is found and selected, bringing their productive capacity up may be delayed or hindered by the fact that the remaining “subject matter experts” lack the expertise and/or not as capable of transferring expertise as the technical experts that were driven away.

Scores of competitively run global corporations in the past few decades have withered away chasing short-term numbers to appease shareholders and activist investors, which in the longer run undermined their capacity, purpose, level of service and brand. Read More

Bring Incumbent, New-Hire and Cross-training Workers into One Training Strategy 

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Employers have long struggled with an issue that may not have seemed urgent and vital to them, but it is a clear indicator to the worker of the employer’s attitude toward those who perform their work: access to training. An effective employer wouldn’t buy and install an expensive piece of equipment or machinery without properly training the workers to use and maximize it. But beyond that priority, most workers are pushed into a world of work for which they are probably unfamiliar – needing only that sense of priority to be successful in their job and to maximize their potential.

Employers say loudly that is their expectation, but often quietly ignore the need to the detriment of their operation and the employee’s future success. According to a survey by Express Employment Professionals, “Of U.S. hiring decision-makers, 69% said the skills gap is wider than ever. 79% of job seekers said the skills gap is less about a lack of ability and more about employers’ unwillingness to train.” I think we can assume if recruiting and hiring was effective, the new-hire wants the job – maybe desperately needs the job – and is hoping they will be guided to the point that the employer will value and retain them. If that guidance and structure isn’t there, it is a great loss not for just each unsuccessful candidate, but to all involved in the process.

The most important moment for building employee interest and loyalty is the transition from onboarding to hands-on work. It presents an opportunity in that it should seek to drive what the new-hire learned in onboarding to immediate application and consistent performance before they forget. What they learned in onboarding is informational and is easily forgotten if that knowledge’s connection to actual work requirements isn’t established. But most employers lack an adequate training infrastructure and focus to ensure that transition, lessening the return on investment in onboarding and setting the new-hire on a path to diminishing ROI. It shouldn’t be difficult to connect the dots, but for many reasons it has become an established trait of too many U.S. employers across industries.

Some employers try to compensate at later stages of employment by singling out a few workers who survived this introduction with a piecemeal approach. Sometimes they will compound the confusion with a class of more knowledge about tasks the employee is unfamiliar, without the opportunity to immediately apply this new knowledge. Sometimes employers open a can of worms by who they pick for additional learning and the topics they choose. Many employees are starving for additional opportunities to expand their expertise. It is a basic human need to build and maintain a feeling of self-worth. Their drive to fill that need should also be seen by the employer as an opportunity for them with many benefits and returns. Read More

A Chaotic Time for Workforce Development Without a Clear Path Forward…Yet

by Frank Gibson, CEO and Interim Chairman of the Board of the North-Central Ohio Employer-Based Worker Training Partnership, Workforce Development Advisor, retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center

Technological advancements have derailed many a state’s workforce development strategy, which is happening at an accelerating rate. It makes one wonder what is the value of new technologies – requiring massive capital investments that drain capital and priorities for everything else – as students, workers, families and communities are pushed aside and collaterally damaged at each turn. The ones that barely recover before the next wonder technology is released, changing directions once again.

Increasingly, these advancements are forced onto a weary society, leaving more dazed, confused and broken Americans behind. Nobody is against technology. But without planning for its equitable purpose in a capitalist democracy meant to float the most boats intending, instead, to deliberately and overwhelmingly benefit its wealthy investors, should concern everyone.

The lead time for major education policies and planning are at least 2-3 years. Relying mostly on backward-looking data, a lot goes into meaningful adjustments on a national scale to keep pace with changing national workforce needs for employers. Then comes the subsequent changes to regional and local education products and services to accommodate changes in national policies, which can take 2-4 years before actually perfected and implemented in a impactful way, and 2-4 years before a student completes a program.

Since the introduction of widespread use of computers and related technology in the 1980’s, the rate of change in job requirements for an evolving marketplace had been accelerating. Then came the off-shoring of jobs which eliminated the job opportunity before a student could finish a degree program. The outdated design of curricula and slow reaction time of institutions made it harder and harder to keep up. Workforce development became a sort of “Wack-a-mole” game, with the student, worker and employers most often the losers.

Because of the declining effectiveness of workforce development, employer’s commitment of resources and efforts toward training new-hire workers – so their fresh skills are immediately applied to tasks the employer needs performed and reason for employee retention – has steadily declined to almost an informality.

Those workers that made the cut were underdeveloped and underutilized, exhibiting enormous collective unused capacity. Perhaps this was due to employer’s unfortunate belief that employees are an accounting “cost” and are easily expendable when shareholders need increased short-term returns every quarter – even at the expense of long-term organizational capacity. Perhaps to the employer’s declining memory of how critical training efforts are to maximizing their return on worker investment.

Then came Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). The four phases of the technology life cycle – R & D, ascent , maturity and decline – have been compressing, with replacement technologies being planned before the first is released. Read More

The Unintended Consequences of Cutting Workers as a First Choice

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Layoffs have often been employer’s “go to” solution during market gyrations. So much so that activist shareholders consider it a normal practice and implement it as a first choice, along with forcing out the most seasoned of management since they are usually the highest paid based on tenure.

Especially since the 1980’s, changes in the financial markets purpose – from sources of needed capital to direct micromanagement of portfolio firms – have turned an infrequent and considered benign practice into a common occurrence. Private equity groups and hedge funds, sometimes with just simple majority positions, rally to send in “change artists” that have a single-mindedness towards cost-cutting to show investors immediate results by making the share value appear to grow. After all, the investment firm may only hold on to the acquisition for a short while until they have gotten all they can, so gutting a holding’s long-term capacity to look more efficient and profitable short-term appears to be just a means to an end. It can also be an effective way to get rid of a brand’s competition by buying them up and breaking them apart in the name of “prudent investment management.”

To the company, layoffs have an often underestimated but always predictable negative ripple effect. As with turnover, layoff cost effects permeate the organization on many levels for an indefinite period of time. The investment in recruitment, selection, training and retention of workers is out the window with, especially, developed expertise. This leaves behind the opportunity costs of lost capacity and diminished institutional memory to kick in. After an investment group moves on doesn’t mean the shell of a previously profitable company can quickly rebuild itself and continue. Pushed back, perhaps decades, in their development and now bled of its operating capital while the market has moved on, the firm’s challenges to regain its footing can be daunting. There are numerous examples of legacy brands struggling to come back – shuttering stores and factories in a desperate act to save themselves after being forced to cut into the remaining bone and losing their sense of purpose.

The ripple continues outside the company’s facility. The turmoil caused to the labor market by such practices is palpable. Workers are reluctant to pursue educational programs that take even a few years for fear those jobs being targeted won’t be there when they graduate but the debt will linger. Families are impacted when the breadwinners can’t keep up with living costs and unexpected expenses. Drive through cities and rural communities and see a growing decay as local discretionary income is diverted from local small business products and services to non-discretionary and necessary expenses often paid to out-of-state and multi-national corporations.

In an article entitled Cutting Too Much: When HR Needs to Pump the Brakes on Layoffs published in Human Resource Executive by Peter Cappelli of Wharton, the author challenges employers on the long-standing practices of “laying off first, determine impact later.” Read More

Read the full November, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

10 Reasons Structured On-The-Job Training is a Vital and Necessary System for Any Organization

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

There are many reasons a deliberate, structured on-the-job training system should be a priority consideration for any employer. For decades employers have felt that having an employee take a few classes here and a few online modules there translates directly to improved worker output and performance. But for decades, as well, employers have continued to talk about a continually increasing “skills gap.” Connection? Obviously yes.

A deliberate and documented system to develop workers and maximize the return on worker investment should be a “no-brainer.” Employers expend enormous resources – time, effort, dollars – on efforts to improve efficiencies…in many cases without making an appreciable difference or not reaching the intended goals. Too often the reason was that no comparable resources were expended to deliberately train the workers to efficiently implement the efficiencies. I thought it might be beneficial to just offer symptoms of failed approaches and reasons why any employer should think more seriously about the state of their internal training infrastructure.

Decades of Drift – U.S. employers have drifted from the basics. “Of U.S. hiring decision-makers, 69% said the skills gap is wider than ever. 79% of job seekers said the skills gap is less about a lack of ability and more about employers’ unwillingness to train.” (Express Employment Professionals).

It’s no secret, many employers express frustration that they can’t find skilled labor but fail to try to properly train the ones they have or hire.

Do We Want to Further Degrade the Skills of the Workforce We Previously Complained Lacked Skills?

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

The media likes to fan the AI flames with bombastic predictions of how we all have to get on board with the AI train or be left behind. My guess it is to support the AI investors who may have a stake in their media group. But reality is increasingly contradicting the lofty projections. AI will have a place as a tool for the toolbox like most over-hyped technology advancements. But in the meantime, the world is in a state of chaos while trying to find its place in the manufactured stampede.

We are told we have to hurry the implementation of AI into all corners of life so “China doesn’t get ahead of us.” Ahead of us on what? Realizing AI’s true potential, risks and dangers? The public backlash over data centers near urban settings and the potential loss of property value, the potential increases in water and electricity prices for consumers, the depletion of scarce water resources, the environmental impacts (e.g. noise, destruction of habitats) all need to be addressed if AI data centers want to find a home, as will the many open questions of the role of humans in this AI world data centers are meant to support.

What was the point of STEM and STEAM in education if we take away the need for the learning skills these programs are meant to impart to a future workforce?

Is Your Firm Still Reliant on Onboarding and Classroom-style Learning for Your Process-based Training?

Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®  – Staff

Is you firm still reliant on onboarding and classroom-style learning for your process-based training? You should know, “…workers forget up to 70% of newly learned information within 24 hours if it is not applied. After one week, retention can drop below 10%.”

If you are hoping AI will close the gap, think about it. If your “standardized processes” are more in the heads of your resident experts and on notes in lunch boxes than documented for all, how and what will AI learn? And then there is the continuous improvement changes…

When it exists, the most prevalent form of process-based training is informal, unstructured and undocumented one-on-one training. It can’t be explained, measured, audited or improved, but miraculously products and services get delivered…until they don’t or don’t get delivered right. Hardly what you would call “world-class.”

“Corporate Capture:” Big Tech Drives AI Into Education and Workforce Development Before Cost, Risks, Societal Benefits/Harm Are Understood

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Do you remember the days when we could purchase a standalone license for computer software? Pay once and done, until someday you might choose to upgrade. In recent years, everything has moved to Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Now you pay a licensing fee every year (price bound to go up each year). If you do not pay the annual licensing fee, your software is turned off as is access to all of your work in their restrictive file format. Moving your files, or accessing them from a compatible product under a different brand, is difficult even if you can find an alternative still around.

SaaS has become the norm for the display and apps on your car dashboard, apps on your phone, apps on your television…it is a ubiquitous guarantee of annually increasing profits for corporations. As product competition is gobbled up to the delight of shareholders, a loss is felt by comparative shoppers and the consumer who feels like a hostage. This marketing practice started spreading in other forms decades ago, such as providing “free” genetically-modified crop seeds to developing countries knowing in time they will need to buy tractors, fertilizers, other farm implements and, yes, next year’s seeds since the free ones are patented and will only grow for one year. Or giving a user “free play” on gambling applications to get them started, then charging for additional tokens to keep playing once hooked. Or selling computer printers cheaply knowing the expensive ink or toner cartridges (filled sparingly) will need to be replaced over and over again. Even Artificial Intelligence (AI) use is priced in “token usage” billed monthly based on usage, with the same conditions of continued AI usage. These are all a form of something called “corporate capture.”

Read the full October, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

“Full Job Mastery” Means “Maximum Worker Capacity” – A Verifiable Model for Measuring and Improving Worker Value While Transferring Valuable Expertise

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

It is no secret that with the traditional model of worker development, the burden of the job/task-specific skill development falls on the employer. It is not economically feasible nor practical for educational institutions to focus content on every job area for every employer, purchase the equipment and find currently relevant instructors. So they, instead, focus rightly on core skills and competencies – relying on the employer to deliver the rest. This is where the best efforts of local educational institutions and training providers begin to break down even if highly relevant to the industry sector.

Employers rely heavily on onboarding “learning” in lieu of focused, deliberate “training.” Onboarding and pre/post-hire classes convey knowledge, but employees “forget up to 70% of newly learned information within 24 hours if it is not applied; After one week, retention can drop below 10%;”

Employers rarely have an internal structure for task-based training of their workers. Even the most aggressive related technical instruction efforts erode against technological advances as every month passes. If core skills and competencies mastered prior to work are not transformed quickly into mastered tasks the worker is expected to perform, the foundation for learning task performance may crumble through loss of memory, loss of relevance or loss of opportunity to apply them.

Reacting to the Proposed Reversal of Regulations Affecting Human Resources and Safety Can Be Tricky

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Political winds frequently change direction, sometimes leading to calls to create or unwind existing labor and safety regulations. Currently, major moves to replace agency leadership and disrupt agency staffing to weaken agency mandates and enforcement capability may be a welcome development to some employers who earlier resisted, or were complacent in, compliance. But as history has shown us, many of the changes might be reversed in the span of an election or two. Enacting and implementing changes to company policies, and disseminating changes to the troops, in response takes more thoughtfulness and planning. Regulations and laws that have evolved over time as the result of events that set them in motion usually have some fundamental rationale that everyone can agree with, or they would have been badly battered during public hearings and public review. The disagreement usually revolves around scope, impact of the law on the non-offenders, and ideological divides.

Congressional changes to labor laws or presidential executive orders usually do not take effect overnight. It may take years for a bill to clear the House and Senate for the president’s signature and/or for the affected agency to make the transition. Changes to laws and enforcement criteria made through Executive Order adds to that process, since the rules, and the authority to make rules, came originally through Congressional action. They have a say in the subsequent rule and guidance’s change or survival.  There will be many impacted groups waiting to litigate the change and the court process can take years with appeals to higher courts. If shot down in whole or in part, then it will be remanded to the lower court to find a legal solution, before potentially starting another series of legislative activities. Regardless, there is a lengthy period of steps and reviews that could delay the action for some time with an uncertain outcome.

Employers: Maximize Worker Development by Better Utilizing Local Resources

by Frank Gibson, CEO and Interim Chairman of the Board of the North-Central Ohio Employer-Based Worker Training Partnership, Workforce Development Advisor, retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center

Every year millions upon millions of state-provided worker development aid is either not utilized or not utilized efficiently and effectively. It represents a frustrating, protracted stalemate between employers who are not sure what skills they need in incoming employees and what to do to maximize an employee’s core skills once employed. Then there are the educational institutions that lack the current, accurate and stable workforce data to design better products and services for employers (i.e. which skills to target that won’t be obsolete in 6-months as the next Wall Street hype emerges).

The current state of workforce development is frustrating from everyone’s standpoint; employers who seem to go through workers like they are changing clothes; employees and potential employees who have given up turning to education for help in developing skills for a long-term career opportunity that pays for their education and can sustain a family, and who skip from job-to-job to find the best opportunity/compensation mix; and workforce development agencies that have the funding resources to support credible projects but are disappointed when employers bail in the middle of a project that seems to be working.

Maintaining Organizational Capacity in a Roller Coaster Economy

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Often an afterthought, the need for structured on-the-job training is just as critical during a time of contraction as during a time of expansion. During cutbacks in staffing, work is redistributed to remaining employees as workers with expertise are inadvertently let go. Sometimes more attention is paid to worker seniority and wage levels than the potential loss of the accumulated investment in worker expertise and related replacement costs as a result of hasty workforce reductions.

Unfortunately, selling the need for an investment in a training infrastructure can be a harder sell to management who might be reluctant to make the case for fear of being perceived as being too “spend-happy” rather than seen as appropriately proactive. However, if no consideration is given to such planning that fact will subsequently reveal itself later in the form of transition costs – lost capacity and decreased operational productivity.

“How an organization prepares for change determines if they will survive it or succumb to it.”

Read the full September, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Can’t Find The Right Workers? Why Not Train Workers To Your Own To Specification?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

A recurring theme in the media is that employers “just can’t find the workers they need.” According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, nearly half of small and mid-size employers said they can find few or no “qualified applicants” for recent openings. And anecdotal evidence from manufacturing firms echoes the same challenge with specialty manufacturing jobs such as maintenance, NC machining and technical support positions.

Manufacturers say $32 billion was spent on “training” in 2025. Yet employees and employers remain unsatisfied with the results. “Employee turnover has cost US industries nearly $1 Trillion…And the most astounding part is that most of this damage is ‘self-inflicted.’ (American Machinist). Employers that average 20-30% turnover rate are unnecessarily running out of skilled candidates.

It’s no secret, many employers complain that they can’t find skilled labor but fail to try to properly train the ones they have or hire. Raced through on-boarding, a new-hire is dropped off at the area supervisor’s door. Introduced to anyone available, the informal OJT begins. No structure, no strategy, no documentation. Panic sets in as the 90-day review approaches with little to validate retention. This seems more like a disconnect between knowing what core-skills and knowledge a successful candidate needs and how to accommodate or remediate core-skill gaps, and having a strategy to build on that foundation with structured, deliberate, documented on-the-job, task-based training before those core-skills and knowledge are lost to time. Read More

Supposedly Fewer Jobs Require Degrees. Now Employers Can’t Agree on Entry-Level Skills They Need. What’s Their Plan to Make Up Difference?

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

In an article in HR Dive by Carolyn Crist entitled, “Fewer Job Posts Require Degrees, Though Hiring Hasn’t Caught Up,” the author explained what appears to be a growing shift in hiring practices by employers. Or maybe not.

She explains, “While the intention to hire people without degrees is seemingly growing, hiring practices remain influenced by traditional requirements… Talent acquisition pros appear to be changing their habits, but hiring has not yet caught up to the push to end degree requirements, LinkedIn data says.” Furthermore, few companies feel effective at skill validation. Unfortunately, educational institutions aren’t all that helpful, with their single-minded approach to skill validation that seems more about validating the products they have and want to market – even though often out-of-date and too general to assess job-specific skill needs.

Starting a Business Now Is Difficult at Best. Navigating the Business Through Factors Inflicted By Others Is Terrifying!

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Entrepreneurism still holds a dream-like status for nearly everyone at one time or another. When we are young with fewer commitments and responsibilities, we are tempted to take the leap. A few do and land at the right moment with the right venture, resources, strategy and financial system balance. Many do and find they were ill-prepared for the wicked ride it can become. Some excellent ideas brought forward by brilliant people time the economic booms and crashes wrong, encounter hidden but insurmountable barriers and the inconvenient discovery that what college textbooks preached about business financing and investors just waiting for their business plan were never there to begin with. Their desperate moves to navigate this “quicksand” leave many swallowed up and never heard from again.

The barriers to a small business’ operation and growth are increasing proportionally to deregulation and misguided economic policy, and outlined pretty well in another Proactive Technologies Report article “If They Haven’t Already, Local and State Econ Development Should Diversify Focus to Emphasize SMBs and Entrepreneurs.” Take, for example, the simple notion of an established small business financing itself to weather economic turmoil created by others. Legislation that started the movement of bigger and bigger banks to buy up local banks and move money from community banks to coasts(Silicon Valley and Wall Street) began in the early 1990’s. It has continued to the point of worsened prospects and dampened spirits for entrepreneurs and small businesses who always start local.

What Makes Proactive Technologies’ Accelerated Transfer of Expertise System™ So Effective

by Proactive Technologies, Inc.^® Staff

There are a lot of buzzwords thrown around these days. “Skills Gap,” Education-Based Apprenticeships, Industry-Recognized Certifications, “STEM and STEAM” – many confusing to those in management whose primary function is to ensure products and services are delivered in the most cost-effective and profitable way. It can be especially confusing to those who are specialists in business operations but unfamiliar with effective worker development strategies.

For anyone unfamiliar with Proactive Technologies’ PROTECH^©® system of managed human resource development™ and the accelerated transfer of expertise system™, it might help to clarify what makes this approach to worker development and continuous worker improvement so effective. This unique approach, in practice since 1986 and always improving, was designed by someone who endured the pressures of maintaining the highest quality staff in a world of constant change and pressures to do more with less.

We start by collecting client data about each of their targeted job classifications; data that is all around anyway (e.g. people’s heads, operator’s notes, engineering processes, quality standards, EHS specifications). Usually we find that this information isn’t readily available or discoverable by new hires and incumbents. This makes learning and mastering the tasks — unpredictable, ineffective, open to interpretation and conflicts (including legal), costly and not conducive of standardization of high performance. And the continual revision of all of these bits of information adds to the challenge and makes process improvement and implementation efforts difficult, at best. Read More

Read the full August, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Training Workers for a Moving Target

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

In an article in HR Dive entitled “How employers could improve job outcomes for young adults: Certain degree programs and on-the-job training could open access to high-demand jobs,” Anthony Carnevale, the lead author of a recent report and director of Center on Education and the Workforce, said in a statement, “Pathways to good jobs are especially strengthened through comprehensive policy efforts that layer effective interventions on top of one another.”

“Some of these pathway changes involve increasing educational attainment, especially progressing toward attainment of a bachelor’s degree. Others replace or combine classroom learning with on-the-job learning, capitalizing on the growth that occurs when workers gain access to jobs in high-demand fields that equip them with both general and sector-specific skills, competencies, and domain knowledge”

It must be understood that the recent report, and other reports over the last decades attempting to provide guidance for better labor force development, explores solutions from the educator and policymaker’s perspective; using the traditional tools and approaches to education to prepare workers who can enter the labor pool with more to offer employers.

When education talks about “on-the-job training,” they are more likely referring to “on-the-job learning,” which is just a change of venue for traditional class or online learning. While important and necessary for preparing future and returning workers for the labor pool, too little time and discovery is spent on the employer’s role in developing the workers they themselves need to perform unique tasks, on their unique equipment for their unique processes. When a trainee’s core and industry-sector skills (industry-specific) are enhanced with task-based structured on-the-job training – by an employer’s subject matter expert delivered one-on-one in a deliberate transfer of expertise – the workers learning efforts prior to employment or concurrent with employment are preserved through direct application, before they erode from non-use.

Realistic Job Previews Can Be a Useful Tool for Measuring a Prospective Employee’s Transferable, Task-based Skills

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Artificial Intelligence is changing the way candidates are evaluated for hiring. More and more candidates are using AI to generate a polished resume – often inflated and/or not truthful – and employers are using AI to evaluate those resumes – with “canned or developing” knowledge and evolving biases. According to an article by Jill Barth of HR Executive, “Organizations that rely on resumes as their primary hiring decision driver are 35% more likely to report a bad hire, according to the report. Meanwhile, around 64% of employers say they have already hired someone whose performance did not match what was on their resume, with 39% saying it has happened more than once.” Concerns have emerged over the damage of ‘slopification’ in AI hiring and whether AI hiring  efficiency is worth the legal risk?

The hiring process can be difficult for both the employer and the prospective employee. A wrong decision can cost each party a lot of time, money and opportunity. It seems reasonable to believe that some of the “hasty turnover” experienced by employers – new-hires quitting in the first few days of employment – may be due to the shock of discovering the real nature, culture, requirements and environment of the job. An unwanted outcome based on the employer not providing an accurate picture of the job, work environment and work expected to be performed can be avoided with a “Realistic Job Preview.” (“RJP”).

If They Haven’t Already, Local and State Econ Development Should Diversify Focus to Emphasize SMBs and Entrepreneurs

by Frank Gibson, CEO and Interim Chairman of the Board of the North-Central Ohio Employer-Based Worker Training Partnership, Workforce Development Advisor, retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center

Everyone seems to be scrambling to be part of the Artificial Intelligence marketing pandemonium. Trillions of dollars are being invested worldwide to solidify AI’s place in the center of all activity. Whether it will succeed in securing that place, or significantly near that level, is heavily debated. Nevertheless, the continuing concentration of bank and investment capital away from community banking not only places all eggs in fewer baskets, it makes it harder for Small and Medium-Sized Business (SMBs) and entrepreneurs to get a chance to reach their full potential and to provide local jobs that will sustain the local economy should the AI bubble burst.

Cities and states are beginning to experience revolts to AI data centers popping up in backyards with very little notice to residents affected, regulation or buy-in – underestimating or ignoring concerns for their enormous thirst for water and energy, their potential for air, water and noise pollution, or what that means for the community if the AI bubble pops and the building and property are abandoned.

When is Illustrating Technical Materials Useful to the Trainee?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Technical process documents standardize work processes in an attempt to maintain task performance at a consistent level of output. From organization to organization, process documents may vary in usefulness though required by ISO/AS/IATF and Nadcap certification. Some may be too vague, too specific or too cluttered into lengthy paragraphs designed for human error. Nevertheless, the intended purpose is to offer guidance as to the “best practice” way of performing work. Whether illustrating technical documents is useful in achieving that goal is dependent on a few factors.

Technical processes, illustrated or not, are most useful to a worker when learning a task for the first time. Unless in a checklist format where step-by-step initials are required to document that no steps are missed, most process documents are reduced to a “reference status” Even though management and auditors want to believe process documents are followed intently each time, that is usually a “staged” behavior. In reality, once committed to a worker’s memory many documents are not seen by the user until the audit is scheduled. Unfortunate but true.

Read the full July, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Economic Development Opportunities – An Important Incentive in Attracting Companies to Your Region

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

When organizations try to create new jobs in their area – working with companies that are considering moving to, expanding to or expanding within their areas – skilled labor availability for many regional economic development strategies may include an offering that consists of one part skills assessment, one part general skill classes and a sprinkling of worker tax credits or grants. That seems to be what most incentive packages include, but is that because: A) that is what the other offers look like; b) it has been like that for decades; C) it is assumed that is all that is available; or D) all of the above?

For over forty years headlines sounded the alarm that those institutions that were training the “workforce of tomorrow” were not succeeding in their effort as discussed in, “An Anniversary That You Won’t Want to Celebrate: Years Later and The Skill Gap Grows – Is it Finally Time to Rethink The Nation’s Approach?“). Many skilled workers that are available to work do not have the skills that employers need today. Not completely satisfied with their answers to the inevitable labor force availability and suitability questions and how workers with specific skill requirements will be found or developed, some economic development organizations are exploring other options and opportunities.

“Whether attracting new companies and helping them thrive and expand, or helping existing business to do the same, this approach is an important component of any economic development strategy.”

Many AI and Automation HR “Solutions” Face Growing Legal Challenges

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

If a worker, who has proven themselves competent for a job, is fired and replaced by another employee without just cause and due process, that most likely can be challenged by regulatory agencies and end up in the U.S. courts. But what happens if that same person is fired and replaced by automation or even a robot? Do the same principles apply?

In China, a tech worker was laid-off and replaced by AI. The case landed in court and the lower court ruled in favor of the worker. The case was taken to the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, which “upheld an earlier decision by a lower-level court that the tech worker’s dismissal was unlawful.”

Explained the article. “The decision is being hailed by legal scholars as a reassuring signal for labor rights protection at a time when the central Chinese leadership is pushing for industries to widely adopt AI technology.” “At the heart of the case is whether a company can use AI replacement as a pretext for laying off human workers.”

Challenge Employees with Self-Improvement Opportunities to Head-off Burnout

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations, Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Let’s face it. Routine work can be boring. Doing the same work for extended periods can affect an employee’s attitude toward their job, employer and life. There are things employers can do to alleviate the tedium of work they need performed, keeping the incumbent employee interested and engaged and the new-hire curious and open-minded.

Workers of all ages are showing frightening levels of decline in engagement with their work. According to a recent Gallup survey, “The New Challenge of Engaging Younger Workers:”

Maximizing Worker Capacity Maximizes Shareholder Value…If Done Right

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

To many, “maximizing shareholder value” has become synonymous with layoffs and short-term cuts that will typically have harmful effects on long-term operational capacity. An often overlooked, but more productive, goal is “maximizing worker capacity” and should be a priority for every organization – publicly traded or not. Leaders of an organization are quick to say, “our workers are our greatest asset.” Yet, efforts to maximize returns on this asset are often hard to recognize or understand.

Maximizing a worker’s capacity maximizes worker value. Collectively, maximizing each worker’s capacity maximizes an organization’s value, and that of the shareholders. It is as simple as that.

Publicly traded companies and privately held companies – some getting ready to go public – seem preoccupied with increasing quarterly earnings per share above all else. A consistently high level of earnings per share over the long-run no longer seems adequate for some. If the market is slack, an organization might carve costs out of the company from even a lean operation rather than disappoint investors. When labor is viewed as a “cost” rather than an asset, the temptation might be to cut benefits and wages. This may prop-up numbers for the short-term, but a demoralized workforce might not produce the same levels of output and quality yield as before. Sadly, a decision might be made in following quarters to cut benefits and wages even more, followed by workers if needed to make the magic number. All the while, worker and operational capacity, along with enthusiasm and loyalty, are eroding.

Read the full June, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Balancing the Need to Raise Wages with the Need to be Competitive

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Increase Worker Capacity, Value and ROI While Lowering Training Costs

It is said employers are having a hard time finding workers. It may be due to some workers having time to think during the disruptions of the past few years and may be looking for jobs that are better aligned with their career goals. Some may be staying put for now through the current chaotic state of economic and geopolitical affairs, made confusing by the premature, incomplete and contradictory news reports and questionable government statistics. Some may prefer not to leave, navigating the difficulties and costs of child care. Although they are with you now doesn’t mean they won’t leave at the first better opportunity.

After COVID-19 years, it appeared employers accepted that, for the short term at least and quite possibly the long-term, they would need to reconsider their compensation structures if they were to attract the caliber of worker they need. Some felt that discussion was long overdue. Of course, raising wages and benefits adds to the cost of labor associated with production or services. If ever the shortage of local suppliers raises the producer’s costs to accelerate the reshoring of jobs to America, the competition for the best workers could get fierce. If the loss of jobs due to the Artificial Intelligence wave displaces so many workers that the workforce pool is replenished, think again. Many of the separated white-collar workers that may be displacing highly skilled, but specialized, workers will need enormous reskilling, process-based training. They will need a wage that will be obviously far less than they made previously or a seasoned, experienced worker in their new position makes, but one that will make them take your job while not continuing the search to a better paying one.

“There is a way to mitigate the inevitable rising labor costs with higher worker capacity, increasing value, and higher worker ROI.”

Training Issue or Attitude Issue? Understanding the Difference

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

If you spend some time in the Human Resources Department office, you often witness a supervisor or manager trying to explain why the new-hire isn’t working out. “Why do you believe that?” asks the HR Manager. The supervisor thinks a moment and says, “He just doesn’t act like he wants to learn. He seems to have a bad attitude.” The HR Manager doesn’t bother to ask for any empirical evidence since it usually doesn’t exist, so the decision is made to terminate the new-hire and start all over…again.

Some, more forward thinking, human resources departments concluded that assessing job prospects might reduce the amount of hiring turnover. It certainly does help do that if the job classification was properly analyzed and the assessment instruments were aligned to the data for current “job relevance.” However, even with the best screening potentially good employees might be lost. Knowing how to recognize the difference between attitude and training-related issues may save good employees from being lost due to misdiagnosis and cut the employer’s costs of turnover.

Whether a challenge to learning or performance is attitudinal is not easy to determine. Attitudes fluctuate from day to day, throughout the day. They can be affected by personal issues such as health of the individual, health of a family member, financial issues, relationship difficulties at home and the work culture (e.g. relationship with coworkers, supervisor and company management). Rather than hastily concluding any issue of worker development is attitudinal, I find it easier to eliminate the obvious and more common influence on worker learning and development; whether proper training has been conducted. After all, employee insecurity caused by feeling expendable while a 90-day probationary period clock is ticking can, in itself, affect anyone’s attitude and personality. If proper training is not available or worker development is conducted in an unstructured, haphazard and inconsistent manner, this is a major contributor to worker attitudes toward the company, themselves and others in the workplace.

We Need More Meaningful Youth Internships

by Frank Gibson, CEO and Interim Chairman of the Board of the North-Central Ohio Employer-Based Worker Training Partnership, Workforce Development Advisor, retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center

Internships have been around for quite some time. The number of internships – mostly college-based – has hovered around 4.3–4.5 million per year. An estimated 31% of interns complete multiple internships before entering full-time work. A number of federal programs such as the USDA Internships and Career Opportunities website and state and local initiatives are there to assist employers to get started and potential interns to find internship hosts. A common complaint of college-based internships with an industry partner is that they usually offer an underwhelming mix of mundane, gofer activities and are more prone to logging hours until the internship is completed. We all hear it – critiques in terms of those who have completed a program and from inexperienced and unsupported employers who try to administer one.

High school internships have been slower to start. But in recent days high school graduates having been increasingly opting for more local employer-based training opportunities and 2-year apprenticeship courses with local community and technical colleges, where they can possibly start making money while gaining currently relevant and marketable industry skills, avoiding a large college debt. They recognize from peer-to-peer anecdotal updates, that a high-cost 4-year degree has become more risky, with no way to know if their chosen career path will result in the career, or if the career opportunity will still exist after graduation.

For employers of any size, providing youth internship opportunities are a great way to build a pipeline of potential employees while helping young people to explore careers, learn about the work environment and culture, and make an informed choice about their employment future.

Embracing AI Technology for Technology’s Sake

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

It is hard to be a competitive swimmer if swimming in mud. While economy is in a state of uncertainty, is “competitiveness” the real motive driving AI, with all its unknowns, into everyone’s life for every situation?

This time, the rush is on to be seen using Artificial Intelligence (or even just talking about using it)… even if they don’t know why and for what purpose. Consumers are struggling, so are small, mid and large-size businesses. Private employer workers, federal workers and institutions are toiling in a manmade world of chaos and uncertainty. It hardly seems like a time to aggressively push AI – with its known and unknown risks – onto it.

To many, AI seems to be a solution looking for problems, similar to Microsoft’s push to Windows 11 – enhanced for gamers and video viewers as if everyone is using their PC for that. That might be a reason why Microsoft had to extend its security updates of Windows 10 to those not seeing a good reason for the switch, that and the fact that there is a good chance software applications and peripherals might have to be upgraded to accommodate Windows 11 like with previous upgrades – a costly experience for any size business.

A growing number of business leaders are advocating for a return to a long-term US industrial policy to guide all of these new technologies into a coherent long-term plan for the broadest impact on US economic sanity, stability and sustained vitality, not to mention for a stable and thriving global market to which to sell US products and services. To move away from an economy driven in self-serving directions by one or a few incredibly wealthy individuals.

The well-funded marketing push by Big Tech and investors to force AI into every corner of life, business and society, seems to add fuel on an already growing fire. In 2024, investors put $1.6 trillion dollars into AI. The Manhattan Project during WWII to develop the first nuclear weapon only spent $30 billion in today’s dollars! “The US’s largest companies have spent 2025 locked in a competition to spend more money than one another, lavishing $155bn on the development of artificial intelligence, more than the US government has spent on education, training, employment and social services in the 2025 fiscal year so far [August, 2025].” It is estimated that Big Tech will spend $725 billion in 2026. With that kind of money behind it, the next innovation – self-tying shoe laces – could be the next “trend.” A lot of that money is spent on the construction of data centers around the country, which are being increasingly opposed by residents for fear of draining the community’s scare water sources, generating ambient heat and noise, and raising consumer electric rates even more. Other than construction jobs, data center isn’t project to create many more.

What Makes Proactive Technologies’ Accelerated Transfer of Expertise System™ So Effective

by Proactive Technologies Inc.^® – Staff

There are a lot of buzzwords thrown around these days. “Skills Gap,” Education-Based Apprenticeships, Industry-Recognized Certifications, “STEM and STEAM” – many confusing to those in management whose primary function is to ensure products and services are delivered in the most cost-effective and profitable way. It can be especially confusing to those who are specialists in business operations but unfamiliar with effective worker development strategies.

For anyone unfamiliar with Proactive Technologies’ PROTECH^©® system of managed human resource development™ and the accelerated transfer of expertise system™, it might help to clarify what makes this approach to worker development and continuous worker improvement so effective. This unique approach, in practice since 1986 and always improving, was designed by someone who endured the pressures of maintaining the highest quality staff in a world of constant change and pressures to do more with less.

We start by collecting client data about each of their targeted job classifications; data that is all around anyway (e.g. people’s heads, operator’s notes, engineering processes, quality standards, EHS specifications). Usually we find that this information isn’t readily available or discoverable by new hires and incumbents. This makes learning and mastering the tasks — unpredictable, ineffective, open to interpretation and conflicts (including legal), costly and not conducive of standardization of high performance. And the continual revision of all of these bits of information adds to the challenge and makes process improvement and implementation efforts difficult, at best.

Read the full May, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Let’s Do the Math. Turning Training “Cost” Back Into Worker “Investment”

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

It’s fairly institutionalized now. A lot of time, effort and resources go into recruiting workers, but very little is done once they’re hired to maximize the return on what should be considered an investment. Although employers forgo tens of thousands of dollars in lower worker capacity and, compliance risks and therefore lower ROI for each employee, each year, the solution has always been simple, economical and available but ignored. Here is formula to estimate what it means to the bottom line to “develop organizational capacity” through worker development and how to turn what has become unnecessarily a “cost” back into a manageable “investment.” 

Background – There was a time when worker training was considered essential, supported by management and accounting. As employers, unwittingly at first, shifted this focus away from nurturing an investment to placing the burden on someone else, it began to look to some like an unreasonable expectation. Pressured by shareholders, employers saw an opportunity to please them and blame others; the false choice to move and keep work offshore in lower wage labor markets (with greater training needs), or spend a lot of time and money developing automated replacements – never mind the risks or feasibility. Simply training the worker for maximum capacity was nudged further and further off the table. The trichotomy – conflict between cheaper labor markets, automated solutions and simply training the worker – continues.

For many employer’s HR professionals, improving onboarding is popular. It is a good start, but it is informational learning, and 70-80 percent is forgotten before the learner gets a chance to apply it. Re-enforcing it with more classroom learning experiences only amplifies the ineffectiveness. Even more detrimental, leaning so heavily on “learning” experiences with uncertain relevance and outcomes has jaded management and accounting to think all worker development options are “costs” to be minimized.

Structured On-The-Job Training Programs for Salaried Personnel

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

It is not just the hourly workers that, once hired, run into the “Bob, this is Sally. Why don’t you show her around” form of “training.” In environments where no structure exists to deliberately train hourly workers, supervisors and managers are similarly shown their desk and wished “good luck.” Yes, the company may offer a series of management courses that explain contemporary management theories, but often the most overlooked training is for the tasks against which performance is ultimately measured.

We frequently hear anecdotal stories about supervisors who are “thrown into the mix” of not only having to lead their workers to measured levels of performance, but concurrently learn their own job from their surroundings as best they can. Other supervisors and managers may be under the same pressure to focus on output, so they may be rarely available to mentor a new manager. Most likely, nothing was ever written down. Even worse, supervisors or managers who are new to the entire operation may have to learn what it is their employees do by observation before they can attempt to lead them to better performance.

Sounds familiar? It seems to run contrary to all the other business improvement initiatives, such as Six-Sigma, LEAN, Continuous Improvement, Total Quality Management, etc. Do companies have to settle for a “seat-of-the-pants” learning experience for their hourly and salary workers? And could this be a major contributing factor in reduced organizational competitiveness? Read More

Employer’s Missed Opportunity for a Dream Workforce

by Frank Gibson, CEO and Interim Chairman of the Board of the North-Central Ohio Employer-Based Worker Training Partnership, Workforce Development Advisor, Retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center

It’s been a growing disconnect, starting several decades ago and continuing to present a major obstacle to an organization’s longevity, stability, adaptability, and competitiveness. Employers seemingly neglecting their irreplaceable role in workforce development. It has always been unrealistic to expect others to be able to train the workers each employer needs when the processes are unique, their equipment is unique or unique in how they use it, their facilities and safety requirements are unique, and their expectations are unique.

In an article entitled, “Robots Without Mechanics: Why Our Education Pipeline Is Failing the Automation Economy,” by Aaron Prather, the author critiques employers making the capital investment in expensive robots without making the investment to train the technicians to maintain them. “The engineer who originally integrated the system left six months ago. Two experienced technicians retired. The remaining team is juggling alarms while supervisors debate whether to reroute orders to another facility.”

It’s Past Time to Be Honest with Students and Workers About the Future of Work in America and America’s Future

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

So much is going into the marketing of “the promise artificial intelligence (AI).” Without the necessary security, protections and guardrails in place, the message can be confusing and overwhelming to say the least. So far, AI seems to be a boom mainly for those who would use it to harm others rather than to help humanity. And those who are financing and benefiting from the imposition of AI on all aspects of life are betting the farm on AI thriving long enough to pull their profits out before it is realized for what it was only meant to be.

Let me be clear up-front, I am not against AI when it is used as defined and confined to the things it is proven to be good at and still in the controlled testing stage. But in this day and age, and with the wealthy and opportunistic investors seeing this as “the next big thing” to increase their wealth, so much in the way of safety, security, practicality, and efficacy is tossed out the window. In fact, changes by this administration have removed even more regulations and oversight, and we the people who are most vulnerable are, as we have been for some time, the guinea pigs.

For decades, the narrative students and workers were hearing was that manufacturing jobs were leaving America and are never coming back. At the same time, we saw that German, Austrian, Swiss, Korean, Japanese, Swedish and many other countries were building manufacturing plants in the US. The predominant pretext for leaving we heard from US employers and politicians was that they “just couldn’t find skilled workers” while manufacturing jobs established here were shipped overseas where there were literally no skilled workers but magically a way was found to make product. Now students and workers are kept guessing over whether jobs they are studying for are going to be insourced or near-sourced to a neighboring country, or replaced by AI, but told “if you hurry and change career paths again you might be OK.”

Proactive Technologies, Inc.^® Offers Pilot Project Structured On-The-Job Training Opportunity

by Proactive Technologies Inc.^® – Staff

If your organization sees worker training as a cost, not as an investment, maybe you should reconsider your approach! For each worker trained to only 30-40% of the tasks required of the job, employers lose tens of thousands of dollars to undeveloped and underutilized capacity and compliance risks, as well as opportunity costs. Unless you have documented your process best practices completely for training, what is there for AI to learn? Even if it could, are you ready for the many risks, hallucinations and ineffectiveness? This is no way to treat an investment;

If you are interested in learning how a structured on-the-job training project could work for your firm, but want to consider a “pilot project” to work out the kinks before scaling it, Proactive Technologies is ready to help.

The PROTECH©® system of managed human resource development:

Read the full April, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Appreciating the Value of Labor – Often Overlooked Source of Wealth

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Businesses invest capital in new equipment or processes to expand and improve operations to become or remain competitive. The level of investment is not as important as the return on that investment. This consistent practice of determining where to best place capital for the highest return should apply to labor, as well. What is “paid” for labor is not as relevant as the value it adds to the operation and, ultimately, profit; the return on worker investment.

The lack of appreciation for the difference between a “training cost” and a “training investment”  is understandable because it is rarely contrasted. The college textbook entitled Financial Accounting: An Introduction to Concepts, Methods and Uses, defines “direct labor cost” as the “Cost of labor (material) applied and assigned directly to a product; contrast this with indirect labor cost.” Indirect labor cost” is defined as, “An indirect cost of labor (material) such as supervisors (supplies).” There is no mention of an expected return on investment. Generations of cost accountants have been taught that there is no good that comes for higher labor costs, which to them is determined by the level of staffing and wage levels. There is no differentiation between strategic labor costs and uncontrolled labor costs.

The profit from, and value of, most worker’s labor comes from task-based work, so all inputs that drive workers to high-performance, high-capacity output are investments.

click here to expand

Have Advances in Technology Distracted HR From the Fundamentals of Worker Selection and Development?

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Hundreds of billions of investment dollars are driving the advancements in technology into every corner of our lives, including the selection and development of workers. Predictably, the emphasis often seems more on the technology and the money it can make for investors than the practicality for the end-user or those it effects.

It is not just the refrigerators that talk to your grocery store, or watches that talk to the phone in your pocket. Wall Street, with an accumulating mountain of cash, can drive any idea to fabricate a “trend” that often dissipates as quickly as it emerges, sometimes leaving disruption in the wake but yields a return for investors. For investors it is the means to an end. To many, it may negatively affect their life and their future.

In the 1990’s, investors started to look at the National Security Agency’s and Central Intelligence Agency’s “key-word search” capabilities used to scan millions of documents from around the world for specific words and phrases to expand their intelligence gathering reach. They saw applications of this technology in the civilian world, including scanning the mounds of resumes and employment applications employers had to filter in order to find a few new-hires. On the surface, this seemed to be a godsend.

click here to expand

The Key To Effective Maintenance Training…Any Training: The Right Blend of Structured On-The-Job        Training and Related Technical Instruction

by Dr. Dave Just, formally Dean of Corporate and Continuing Education at Community Colleges in MA, OH, PA, SC. Currently President of K&D Consulting 

I spent a lot of my career as Dean of Corporate and Continuing Education at community and technical colleges, in several states. Where we could, we tried hard to provide the best core skills development delivery for technical job classifications the employers in our community requested. We often did this working off the limited, and often suspect, job information the employer could provide to us.

Often we were up against budgetary constraints that limited our efforts to customize programs and keep the programs up to date when the instructor was willing to maintain the relevance of the program. If that wasn’t enough, school leadership often showed ambivalence toward adult and career education due in part to the fact that its demand was driven by gyrations in the economy. Furthermore, the institution was built upon, more familiar with and understood better credit courses for the more stable subjects such as math, science, literature, history and the social sciences.

We tried a lot of innovative programs for employers in the community within the constraints mentioned, but if I was to be honest we rarely kept up. What we thought we knew of the targeted job classifications and their requirements, and upon which our programs were built and measured, seemed to become increasingly misaligned within just a few years. Not only was advancing technology putting pressure on the content of our learning materials and program design – a constant push toward obsolescence – the employers were continually rethinking the design of their job classifications to meet their business goals and budgets. We were finding less and less similarity in job classifications between employers, by job title and job content.

click here to expand

“Learning” v. “Training” Confusion In Workplace – Obstacle to Effective Worker Development Strategies and Apprenticeships

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

In an article appearing in EHS Today entitled, “From Seat Time to Skill: How Leading Safety Teams Are Proving Competence, Not Just Compliance,” an important point was made of the difference between “compliance” – seat-time based – and “competency” – being able to apply what is learned during seat-time to the competent performance of a task. “Learning” has become wrongly synonymous with “training,” when in fact they are two different methods, affecting two different domains, meant for two different outcomes. Classroom information delivery may seem to meet a management objective for the time being, but having a name on an attendance roster does not excuse management of accountability when the attendee mal-performs. to internal and regulatory requirements.

This principle should apply to all tasks required of a worker. What is the point of going through the expensive ritual of recruiting, hiring, onboarding only to stop there and let the employee find their own way to meeting management’s expectations? It is a process that is widely utilized and increasingly risky and wasteful:

• underdeveloped and underutilized human capital investment,
• risk of poor performance and malperformance,
• risk of non-compliance with engineering, quality, EHS and OSHA requirements,
• and risk of litigation due to operator injury or death due to inadequate of non-existent training.

click here to expand

Read the full March, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

No Wonder: On-the-Job TRAINING Is Rarely Taught in College

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.®

We have heard for the last 40 years that employers “just can’t find the skilled workers they need.” Why aren’t there more people taking a critical look at this bold declaration? It gets regurgitated at every conference, in many newscasts and business publications as if it is a proven fact or biblical commandment, not the folk lore it really is. It was created in the 1980s as a pretext for employers moving their operations to lower-wage labor markets that have absolutely no local skilled labor and few candidates with a good foundation upon with to train.

As employers continued to lean on the phrase to disingenuously express their dismay with state’s workforce development and educational institutions – whose only legitimate role has been, and should be, in developing graduates with a solid general and regionally technical skill-base upon which employers could build upon through task-based on-the-job training that only they could, and should, deliver – the pressure was so great that institutions transformed themselves many times in sincere efforts to accommodate the fabricated reasoning. Each time it resulted in little to no impact on the supposed problem, given the continued “we just can’t find the skilled workers” shifting of blame.

click here to expand

What Are You “Turning Over” When You Say You Have “High Turnover?

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.®

It is not hard to overhear human resource managers commiserating over the high rate of “employee turnover“ they are encountering and struggling to remedy. In listening a little more closely, it is not entirely clear as to what that phrase, seemingly ubiquitous, means today. Is this a conversation where both parties seem to believe they know what the other is talking about, but underlying each case are different facts?

Not too long ago, turnover meant the rate of loss of employees to replace those who exited the company. It usually referred to those employees in which the employer had made an investment to develop them into an asset. it appears many still see that as a general description, but the source of their struggles seems to address other structural issues.

It is important to distinguish between four different types of labor turnover to be focused. First, there are the individuals that apply for a job, are hired, but do not appear the first day of work. The only investment the company made is the time it took to interview the individual and log them in as an employee.

click here to expand

New Year’s Resolutions That Can Right This Skills Gap…Thing

by Frank Gibson, Workforce Development Advisor and President of the North-Central Ohio Employer-Based Worker Training Partnership

Jessie Potter, Director of the National Institute for Human Relationships, is said to have originated the quote, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you always get what you’ve always gotten.” For the last 40 years, manufacturing employers have expressed their despair at “not finding the skilled workers they need,” while employees say employers are not doing their share to train workers and educational institutions churn billions of dollars each year doing their best to develop entry-level workers with industry level skills only to find those targeted jobs were sent overseas. With the new year upon us, maybe it is time for all parties to take a step back, face the issue honestly and pragmatically and put an end to the buck passing, the “shell game” and the misplaced expectations to make the American workforce the envy of the world.

There are three important stakeholders in this equation going forward: the employer, the prospective employee and the institutions that make the effort to prepare workers for the employer. Although prospective workers can come from any background, it is a relatively linear path to the employer’s front door. What happens next has seemed to be a bit of a mystery to the employer and stakeholders in the community, and that ambiguity affects the quality of the inputs preparing potential workers.

The Prospective Employer Needs:

click here to expand

Use Business Disruption Lulls to Develop Unused Worker Capacity: Build Organizational Value and Off-set Unexpected Costs

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.®

For those of us who remember the shear terror of recent disruptive events, we remember the deep sense of doom they instilled in employers, workers and their families, and government leaders. We knew that these were not the “business cycles” of college textbooks, these were man-made catastrophes that spared no-one in the disruption…though sometimes enriching the architects. Nevertheless, they came and went – varying only in severity and duration.

Recent horrific business disruptions like the Savings & Loan Crash of 1986, the Black Monday Stock Market Crash of 1987, the Dot.com Crash of 2000, the Crash of 2008 (with scandals like the Penny Stock Market, SBA and HUD and recessions woven in between), made lives harder and transformed businesses for better or worse. If seemed that if a business survived these types of disruptors, it was often because they focused on using the downward part of the a busy cycle to adjust and perfect their operations, build capacity and sharpen focus in preparation of the upward part of the cycle to come. Maintaining as much forward momentum through adversity as possible is critical in determining the quality of the survival, especially when the time between disruptions continues to grow shorter. Lead times, whether for new product introduction, entering a new market or just resuming normal operations is incredibly important if one considers the next disruption as a “backstop.”

click here to expand

Read the full February, 2026 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.