Since the beginning of the year, I have worked in the U.S., Bahrain, Singapore, and as I write this, in Saudi Arabia. One interesting theme keeps popping up: measuring the value of training. This is one we’ve heard before. There’s an even more interesting subtheme: Why invest in people? We’ll train them and then they’ll leave—often going to our competitors. In all four countries, there was a vocal group of people (though not a majority by any stretch of the imagination) who felt you should invest in people only when they have proven themselves. Or invest in people only when the government subsidizes a large part of the investment. Or invest in people only when they agree to continue employment for a certain period of time.
My response was not what people expected. I have always believed that you provide people with as large an opportunity as they are willing to grow into. Each time they respond to an opportunity, you provide another one. That includes development. There are three skills sets that anyone brings to a job:
- Technical skills
- Interpersonal skills
- Managerial skills
At an entry level, there’s a high need for technical skills (programmers must program, assemblers assemble, cooks cook, etc.). There’s not much need for managerial skills—they are paid to perform the front-line tasks.
At the other end of the spectrum, managers have a greater need for management skills such as planning, staffing, organizing, delegating, deciding, etc. While there is some need for the same technical skills as the people they manage, it is not as critical. What remains important throughout people’s careers is the interpersonal skills—the ability to get along with and work with other people effectively. I’ve made this statement in dozens of countries and seen people nod in agreement: People are hired for their technical skills or their managerial skills, but they are fired for their lack of interpersonal skills.
People are seldom fired because they can’t do the job. They’re fired because they are difficult to work with; they don’t interact well with others. A corollary to this is that people don’t quit companies; they quit bosses. So bosses who don’t listen, play favorites, don’t provide development opportunities, etc., over time find that their best people leave (they are welcomed with open arms elsewhere) and the marginal people stay. And when employees decide to leave a boss, it most often means they leave the organization. Why commit to an organization that put someone like that in charge anyway?
WHAT EMPLOYEES REALLY WANT
For much of my career (now more than 45 years), people have wanted many of the same things in order to be satisfied and engaged in their jobs:
- Interesting work
- Appreciation for work well done
- Feeling “in on things”
Over the same time period, managers again and again said that people wanted good pay and job security. The interesting thing is that managers have a lot of control over the things employees “really want” and little control over good pay and job security.
And part of interesting work is the opportunity to grow and develop—to learn and take on new challenges. When a manager commits to developing people, that manager is creating an environment people can thrive in. It is that type of environment that makes people commit to a manager and an organization. Think about it for a second: If you had, right where you are right now, interesting work; appreciation for the great work you do; and knowledge that you were “in the loop,” why would you want to leave? Would you even think about it? Could you be tempted away by the promise of more money? How much would it take? And what if you ended up in a new position with more money but less appreciation, less interesting work, and felt “out of the loop”? Would you regret your decision? I know many who have.
TRAINING IS A PROCESS
Tomorrow (as I write this), I’ll be delivering a keynote at ASTD MENA for the second year in a row. Part of my presentation will lay to rest this entire conversation. I’ll be sharing with the audience that training is a process, not an event. And that the purpose of training is to deliver results. Developing people happens as a byproduct of training. But the purpose of training from a business standpoint is that the knowledge, skills, and confidence that the training builds will produce more of the results the organization needs to survive and thrive.
I’ve said in earlier columns that when performance is the question, training is the sixth answer. When we have deep conversations with managers about performance and help them focus on all the possible barriers to performance first—systems, policies and procedures, recruitment, placement, and coaching—but using some or all of these still does not provide the performance and results we want, then it is time to look at training. When viewed this way, managers are much less likely to focus on whether or not someone “deserves” development— or may or may not leave—but that the only way to performance and results is with new knowledge, skills, and confidence.
So I’d like to challenge each of you reading this to tell me a story—a story about a manager you left or a story about a manager who made you want to stay. You can e-mail me at BPike@BobPikeGroup.com; put “Manager Story” in the subject line. As a thank you, I’ll send you a full color copy of my “Performance Solutions Cube” job aid.
Until next time—continue to add value and make a difference.
Bob Pike, CSP, CPAE, CPLP Fellow, is known as the “trainer’s trainer.” He is the author of more than 30 books, including “Creative Training Techniques Handbook.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook using bobpikectt.