The Learning “Cost“ Versus Training “Investment“ Paradox
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
This newsletter has written extensively about the inexplicable classification of the training a worker needs to succeed as a “cost“. It has never made much sense, yet it is so entrenched in our business operations that no one gives it a second glance.
Consider, for a moment, a firm’s excitement surrounding the $1 million investment made for new machinery that is meant to increase productivity and output by 50 to 100%. What an accomplishment that would be if that goal is reached.
Now consider that the equipment has arrived, has been installed, and a worker is randomly selected and gifted with a user’s manual loosely translated for another language and told to “figure it out.” This happens more often than we want to admit. A case can be made that the inefficient use of time, dollar resources, and the opportunity costs of underperformance and, possibly, equipment damage during self-training of its functions is truly costly.
click here to expandBut what if the worker, and each worker after that, meant to operate the machinery was quickly, deliberately, and completely trained to operate the equipment and could immediately apply those task-based skills to meet the production goals? Wouldn’t that now be considered an investment? Doesn’t it make far more sense than the “hunt and peck” or “osmosis learning” approach to task mastery? Which approach to worker development is likely to achieve the advertised productivity and output expectations of that new equipment investment? How much money would be lost or gained relative to each approach to worker training?
A lot of this discussion may seem rhetorical, but it isn’t. It is relevant and real. It is still unfathomable that business leaders have been unable to break away from that antiquated method of classifying worker training. I understand past disappointing experiences with, perhaps, the purchase of outdated or irrelevant “canned” learning programs with no “hands-on” opportunities. However, that is more a case that the skill enhancement targeted lacked definition and an adequate analysis to correctly select the right learning content and a most appropriate method of delivery. Read More
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:”
- “42% of employees who are looking to find a new job say they feel their company is not maximizing their skills and abilities.” (Deloitte)
- Among the reasons for quitting, career development is the most common for employees that leave within their first 90 days in a company. (Work Institute)
- According to LinkedIn research, “94% of workers say they would be more likely to stay at a company if it invested in their career.”
With the natural increase in retirements and the loss of technical expertise, losing workers unnecessarily seems to be risk no one would want to take.
click here to expandThese data points were re-enforced by other measures viewing the employee attitudes from another angle. According to HR Dive, about 65% of employees said they suffered from burnout last year, according to a Dec. 18 report from isolved, a human resource management system. Employee burnout has decreased somewhat compared to 2022, according to the report, but it’s still heavily affecting productivity. About 72% of employees said burnout impacted their performance.” Read More
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 to, 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 through Congressional action, and 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.
click here to expandWhile all this is going on, political tides that brought in the change may begin to turn back. Often one political party or the other overreaches, or misreads their constituents and acts against their voter’s interests. The make-up of Congress and or the presidency in the next election may push the pendulum back. Read More
Debt Ceiling, Deficit and National Debt; The Difference and Why it Matters
by Proactive Technologies, Inc. – Staff
There is a lot of talk and confusion these days about state of the country’s finances. Often one measure is used to conflate and confuse the discussion about how to improve the others. The danger is those most impacted by whatever corrective measure becomes law are usually the same ones who have been sliding backward for the last 4 decades.
It is important to know the difference and add your voice to the discussion.
“The debt ceiling is a limit on the total amount of government borrowing. First put in place by Congress during World War I, it was meant to give blanket authorization for the Treasury Department to borrow money up to a set amount.”
“The U.S. budget deficit is how much more the federal government spends annually than it receives in revenue during that same time period.”
“The national debt of the United States is the total national debt owed by the federal government of the United States to Treasury security holders.
click here to expandThe national debt at any point in time is the face value of the then-outstanding Treasury securities that have been issued by the Treasury and other federal agencies. The terms “national deficit” and “national surplus” usually refer to the federal government budget balance from year to year, not the cumulative amount of debt.” Read More
Today’s American Managers Have Evolved Way Past the Musk-DOGE “Management by Tyranny” Style
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
Most CEOs and human resource directors are probably watching the DOGE firing’s “shock and awe” spectacle with “shock and horror.” There may be a few frustrated managers who view this nostalgically and look fondly upon a possible return to the labor practices of the early 20th century, but I bet even they see the incomprehensibility and inhumanity behind the approach and foresee the most likely unproductive, lingering chaos to continue beyond this action.
Apolitically and regardless of what one thinks of Musk as a person, his management practices and actions toward government are antithetical to making improvements and creating efficiencies, though under the guise of doing so. It seems more like an antiquated attempt to demonstrate one’s power and the fragility of the worker. His disdain for the worker is well documented and reflected by his private sector business practices and response to criticism.
But the federal government isn’t a business, should never be thought of as a business and if it was, we all would suffer for it. It doesn’t seek a profit nor is constantly seeking higher returns on shareholder equity. It takes in taxes and provides common services and, in most cases, does so very efficiently and effectively. Can it be run even more efficiently and effectively? Sure, but we would have to demand lobbyists carving out loopholes be barred from accessing members of Congress (who created the agencies by statute and rules that guide them) and insist on campaign finance reform to push out the destructive influence of money on our lawmakers and agency enforcers, which keeps workers from doing their job to the best of their ability.
click here to expandIf they thought about it, citizens do not want to “privatize” common services. They can’t afford what they have already experienced (e.g. the healthcare system, the slow-motion privatization of the US Post Office). The powerful influence of Wall Street to privatize parts of government so they have more speculative instruments to sell creates more multi-millionaires and billionaires, but the public welfare is clearly left behind or fighting over the crumbs left behind. The role of federal government in a democracy is to be the arbiter of rules and fairness for all citizens in all states. It ensures businesses operate within guardrails to ensure they can be profitable but not at the disproportional expense to the consumer. We are all real-time witnesses to what happens when those guardrails are opened too much and oversight diminished.
The federal government’s role is under attack by those who have and would profit from its impotence, and no one could say with the number of the multi-millionaires and billionaires now in this country that the private sector has suffered anywhere near what citizens have through Wall Street gyrations and disruptions. The Savings and Loan Crash of 1987, the 1980, 81-82, Early 1990s, Early 2000s and the 40 Other Recessions, the DOT.com Crash of 2000, the Economic Collapse of 2008 and so on. Allowing billionaires to “fix” what they repeatedly break, hurting the many and forcing them to constantly rebuild any wealth they once had, seems dangerously deceptive. Read More
Read the full March, 2025 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo; br>Accelerated Transfer of Expertise System™; Certificate of Job Mastery Program™, Certificate of Task Mastery Program™ are all trademarks of Proactive Technologies Inc.®;