Worker Development Is an Ongoing Commitment, Not a “One and Done” Event

by Frank Gibson, Workforce Development Advisor, retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center

I have spent many years of my life working in manufacturing and providing consulting services to manufacturers and workforce development groups. While employers like to showcase there ISO, IATF or AS certification symbolizing their commitment to quality, imbedded throughout those certification program requirements are the need to demonstrate a system to develop workers, to maintain records that workers are trained to the company’s processes, show the continuous improvement of the training programs and updating of workers, and the protection of “legacy knowledge” and “tribal wisdom” to ensure sustainability.

Unfortunately, one common thread I find is the employer’s weak focus and commitment to the development of workers. Sure, some employers rise above the rest and there are a lot of core skill and industry-general training programs hosted by community colleges and technical training providers (some seem to make the effort to be relevant with changes in technology and the trajectory of industry). However, too often management rarely stays focused on worker development as they do on other parts of the organization. I don’t often see a “commitment to quality” and “continuous improvement” principles being applied to what the organizations fondly call “training.”

Typically, the conversation changes to classes that are offered before the realization that accounting will see it as a “cost” and veto the idea before it gets off the ground. Or, the manager hands it off to someone…knowing it will probably see the same fate. Even though most states have grant funds available to help employers pay the cost of classes provided locally and specialty training provided elsewhere, states are willing to provide funding to offset most, if not all, of the employer’s investment to implement a true, documented structured on-the-job training program, as well.

Worker training – the “transfer of expertise” – goes on every day, with every worker in every organization. How many companies would you say harness the existence of this phenomenon that grew out of the non-existence of anything formal to “make the best of it?” Informal, unstructured and undocumented on-the-job training (“OJT”) is rampant; the employer’s support and commitment usually isn’t. Worker development seems to be the last thing on the minds of management when things are going well but the first thing to be cut during turbulent times; be it cutting training budgets, severely limiting time devoted to informal OJT, or inadvertently laying off individuals who served as ad hoc, informal OJT trainers because someone had to do it.

It seems to me successful companies figured out that developing, maintaining, and enhancing worker capacity is just as important as any piece of equipment or any trendy methodology that comes from academia or Wall Street. There is a steadiness about their approach to their workers and to the protection of the worker intellectual and technical expertise. They recognize that they have invested tremendously in a worker’s development (even if no one kept track), are still realizing returns on worker investment and know if they are to continually adapt they need their training system to work well.

Increasing and maintaining worker capacity, doesn’t just mean that incumbent and new-hire workers receive the proper, consistent, and documented training required to become “experts“ of their required tasks. It also means that they have a collective contribution to work quality, work, quantity, and compliance with required engineering specifications, safety requirements, and do not need to burden coworkers to get these tasks done right.

When I meet with employers, I try to help them critically examine their worker training systems. I try to help them identify what is working and what is not. This is not always easy because employees who have built a career around what they have created given constrained resources and tepid support from the organization tend to be defensive, not convinced I am there to help. If some aspects of what they have been doing are truly working – even to a minimal degree – it might be better to improve on that to build a better worker training infrastructure that they can manage for the future. An effective “structured on-the-job training system” is:

• deliberate,
• extremely job-relevant,
• provides records on each worker’s development and cross-development – no matter where the employee is assigned,
• is easily revisable to keep it current and accurate,
• is measurable and can lead to improvement,
• and is auditable from top t bottom.

Why wouldn’t every employer want a robust, cost-effective and efficient worker training system that reduces the internal costs of training to make the “informal OJT” more effective and efficient?

Sometimes employers are unwittingly lulled into complacency and may think they already have this level of formal, SOJT system because people they’ve hired to bring them robust training strategies must have already found and are already implementing. They conclude this because products are going out the door and services are being provided. Some in management may be afraid to ask questions about a field they have too little knowledge of, so they leave it to the “experts” they have hired, accepting on blind faith that their hired experts are experts, not just chasing trends and fads. Yet at the same time employers express concern of the many symptoms that materialize if training is not as deliberate as they were led to believe:

• Alarmingly high worker turnover (even the seasoned, tenured, and scarce subject matter technical experts seem to be leaving at a high rate and level);
• Worker morale is not what it should be – when workers eliminate their concern and fear for being unable to contribute properly to the organization, making them vulnerable to layoffs, their angst compounds their other employment concerns;
• Employees say the company has no paths of opportunity; employees who are loyal and are ambitious and willing to put in the effort see no opportunities to do so;
• Human resources continue to hire more replacement workers, but productivity does not seem to rise as one would expect – sometimes visibly showing disconcerting signs of productivity decline Perhaps the informal OJT system can’t keep up due to lack of subject matter expert trainers and support infrastructure. Maybe no one bothered to capture a departing subject matter expert’s expertise to accelerate the training of replacements;
• Compliance with internal programs seems weak – such as ISO/IATF/AS requirements for established written work process and descriptions, and internal/external safety program requirements. Efforts to drive these programs yield a steady low level of compliance, born out by the high levels of product scrap and rework, or operator injury.
• New employees don’t stick long around enough for the on-boarding – some communities have gone through so many new-hires that there is no one left locally to interview. There employers may have more issues to consider than training.

Whatever programs the organization has painstakingly put in place to address worker development, worker training efforts and resources are often cast to the wind when a change in management occurs and/or investors send in a “turn-around expert” to force random cuts to improve financial reporting. Lost in this random and irrational act is the short and long-term impact it will have on remaining workers, one of the vital assets of the company.

In my nearly 40 years of experience, I have been glad to work with companies that have reached that higher level of awareness. However, sadly, I have not seen a widespread sharpening of focus on training necessary to make American manufacturing the powerhouse it once was. It is not for lack of effort, and it is not from lack of resources. It seems management tend to be lacking the clarity of the necessity of deliberately developing and managing each worker’s capacity. If they had it they commit to SOJT and protect it through any type of weather.

It is said, “necessity is the mother of invention.”  I still have hope that “necessity, frustration and desperation is the mother of reinvention and redirection.”

Check out Proactive Technologies’ structured on-the-job training system approach to see how it might work at your firm, your family of facilities or your region. I have worked with their team and approach to worker development on numerous projects. 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.