Company Based Education Training and Development - Case Study Example

Company Based Education, Training, and Development Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Table of Contents Introduction 3 Reasons for underfunding in-house employee training and development 3 Setting clear and relevant in-house training and development goals and objectives aligned to organizational goals and objectives 5 Developing low-cost in-house training and development initiatives 6 Communicating to the management the adverse effects and risks generated by lack of sufficiently funded in-house training and development 7 Communicating the benefits derived from sufficiently funded in-house training and development 8 Conclusion 9 References 9 Introduction In contemporary organizational and business environments, which are characterized by shifting political, social, cultural, legal, financial, environmental, economical and technological forces coupled with stiff competition, organizations have realized that their success and competitive advantage lies in having an efficient and effective human resource. The human resource which makes up the entire labor force is the most reliable and valuable asset to an organization and requires continuous empowerment and motivation to enhance performance and productivity, which can adequately be attained through company based education, training and development (GR, et al., 2010). According to Noe (2002), in-house training provides an opportunity for an organization to develop sustainable business by indicating in a tangible means how much the employees are valued. Despite the numerous benefits generated by in-house employee training and development, many companies fail to provide sufficient in-house ETD funds (Baker, 2007). This informs this report which seeks to analyze the reasons why and develop four recommendations on how HRM can change the systematic underfunding of in-house training by general management. Reasons for underfunding in-house employee training and development According to GR et al. (2010), employee training and development is an essential component for organizations in ensuring the workforce can competently execute its responsibilities, improving employee motivation and enhancing process and system efficiency, fostering innovation. In addition, helping in knowledge sharing between senior and junior employees and among veterans employees and new recruits, improving worker productivity and performance, and is essential in sustaining an organization’s competitiveness. More often than not, talented and valuable employees do not maintain their status quo and are likely to demand chances to learn new things, advance and develop to adapt to emerging changes and thus, may seek it elsewhere if a company is not willing to offer it (Baker, 2007). (Noe, 2002) asserts that majority of management underfund in –house ETD since they see the process as a waste of resources which may be due to being misinformed or the fact that implemented in-house ETD initiatives may have failed and cost the company money. In addition, the organization may have insufficient funds to adequately cater for organizational operations and systems and have enough to cater for in-house training and development initiatives especially when the organization feels it has recruited the best candidate who have ample knowledge and skills to perform (GR, et al., 2010). Often, the management may lack the understanding or are unaware about the important role employee training and development plays in enhancing productivity of the firm and helping the firm achieve implemented business strategies and attaining organizational goals (Baker, 2007). Moreover, the management may not see the connection between employee training and development with employee empowerment and motivation and therefore, allocate fewer resources on training on more on other motivational areas such as increasing salaries. In other instances, organizations may fail to give sufficient funds to in-house ETD for fear that once the employee receives the training they may seek to be promoted or seek greener pastures, options which cost the company more money (Noe, 2002). The need for training may be inconsistent and therefore organizations may not be in a position to know how much is required to sufficiently cater for training and development needs which means they are more likely to under budget during budget allocation exercises. As discussed by Baker, most training and development of employees occurs informally and therefore, its benefits are not measurable which may hinder the management from knowing exactly the progress made due to in-house training and development and more so, how much it would require to train employees using in-house training programs (Baker, 2007). This may lead to underfunding not because the company does not want to allocate enough funds to in-house training and development but because it does not know exactly how much is required. Recommendations The HRM can change the systematic underfunding of in-house training by general management by implementing the following recommendations Setting clear and relevant in-house training and development goals and objectives aligned to organizational goals and objectives As earlier mentioned, underfunding may be as a result of failure of the management to understand the importance of in-house training and development in enhancing performance, motivating employees and helping employees equip themselves with skills that help attain organizational goals of competitiveness and profitability. Therefore, the HRM needs to develop clear and relevant in-house training and development goals and objectives and align them to organizational goals and objectives to ensure the process benefits both the employee and the organization (Miner, 2001). The HRM needs to communicate to the management on the various ways and means in-house ETD helps the organization in attaining anticipated organizational and business outcomes. Developing low-cost in-house training and development initiatives As there are varied reasons and benefits of facilitating in-house training and development, there are varied ways the process can be made affordable and ensure the management is able to allocate sufficient funds. Apart from offering tuition reimbursements which might be costly for the company, the HRM can effectively compel the management to allocate sufficient funds by establishing cost effective online training programs for employees, leveraging present training and development opportunities, communicating the need for training to the management by making them aware of the training needs established from performance appraisal reports as echoed by (Baker, 2007). Baker (2007) suggests availing free training opportunities and advocating for other forms of informal training such as mentoring and coaching where employees learn as they work while using veteran employees to impart knowledge acquired through personal and work related experience to new employees, which costs the company less or nothing to facilitate. Succession planning is effective where valuable employees are offered training opportunities in order to replace retiring employees of vacant positions on critical management positions. Another way 5for HRM to ensure sufficient funding for the in house training and development programs include convincing the management to develop a one person training which will provide continuous training, and it is an effective strategy for the company to generate the benefits of training and developing while using less resources as discussed by Miner (2001). It is important for the HRM to allocate funding in in-house training and development by taking into considerations existing economical and financial situations of the organization. To quell fears that employees once trained they may seek to be promoted or depart for greener pastures, HRM can ensure that training and development does not necessarily result in immediate promotion and instead employees are offered challenging or new tasks in their present job positions. According to Noe (2002), organizing internal workshops presented by well-informed in-house experts and professionals can gratify the need for education, inspire, and motivate thinking and innovation among employees cost effectively. Communicating to the management the adverse effects and risks generated by lack of sufficiently funded in-house training and development Among the most effective ways for the HRM to alter the systematic underfunding of in-house training and development by the general management is by making the management aware of the adverse impact and the risks which are generated for failing to sufficiently fund it. This includes enlightening them on how due to failure to access quality training and development opportunities and programs has a snowball effect where employees feel their personal and professional growth and development is not valued by the organization, which reduces their motivational level and commitment to work as indicated by Baker (2007) . In addition, lack of access to emerging relevant skills and knowledge means the employee is incapable to execute their duties effectively which means less performance, reduced productivity which means the firm cannot realize its set goals and objectives. GR et al. (2010) notes that insufficiently funded in-house training and development means employees are unable to equip themselves with new knowledge and information related to the business and the industry which means their ability to adapt and be flexible to changes is low which means the company is competitively disadvantaged. Valuable employees are eager to continuously learn and when they do not have opportunity to do so they opt out of the company and costs the company substantially in terms of recruitment costs and costs of losing valuable and talented employees as noted by Miner (2001). By indicating all these adverse impact of inadequately funded in-house training is bound to make the management think twice and allocate sufficient funds. Communicating the benefits derived from sufficiently funded in-house training and development Just as communicating the adverse impact of underfunding of in-house training has in generating sufficient funds so does communicating to the management the varied benefits and advantages of adequate funding of in-house training. The HRM needs to inform the management that in-house training pays for itself and even many times more in terms of enhanced employee motivation, improved employee participation and increased worker productivity and performance. When the management fully understands the significant benefits sufficient funding has on achieving organizational goals and strategies, it is bound to ensure in-house training is adequately funded. According to Noe (2002), in-house employee training and development helps an organization saves on money and time and help enhance the potential of the workforce which translates to positive organizational results. A company should at no point underfund in-house employee training and development initiatives or seek to cut on costs by reallocating resources meant for in-house employee training and development instead, it should adapt provision of employee training and development to present economic situations as suggested by Miner (2001). Conclusion Training and developing the workforce is a must do process that should be integrated in an organization’s culture and can sufficiently help attract and retain talented and valuable employees by equipping them with the necessary skills. Training and developing does not necessarily have to entail making employees attend outside learning such as seminars and conferences although they are essential, but it can affordably and easily attained through in-house employee training and development. References Baker, H. 2007. Employee Training. Melbourne: Global Media. GR., Anderson, L., NRC. TRB. TCRO. FTA. & TDC. 2010. Guidebook for recruiting, developing, and retaining transit managers for fixed-route bus and para-transit systems. London: Transportation Research Board. Miner, N. 2001. The One-Person Training Department. New York: American Society for Training and Development. Noe, R.A. 2002. Employee training and development. New Jersey: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Read More