The paper "Company Based Education Training and Development" is a perfect example of a Management Case Study. In contemporary organizational and business environments, which are characterized by shifting political, social, cultural, legal, financial, environmental, economic 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 the majority of managements 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 has ample knowledge and skills to perform (GR, et al. , 2010). Often, the management may lack the understanding or are unaware of the important role employee training and development plays in enhancing the 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 to 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.