IT Retention and Training: From Employer to Employee
Category Management
The discussion on IT retention and training continues with the reflections of Kit Davis and Stephan Wissel. I've known Kit for many years, as he sponsored the original DC Notes User Group. Stephan presented at Lotusphere '06 on WebDAV, and I was fortunate to run into him during the Sunday night event. Both of these professionals come with significant experience and insight.
Stephan makes a compelling argument that it is our responsibility to articulate the cost of poor management decisions:
Absolutely.
It is truly amazing, isn't it, how some IT workers will try to shove through decisions on the basis of their expertise alone. I know of one instance where a messaging upgrade was killed at the very last minute (after months of planning), because the IT director couldn't estimate the benefits of upgrading to the CFO in an elevator.
Kit draws on his experience of employees expecting a raise for simply attending a class (after taking off a week of billable hours).
Absolutely.
If training were truly the engine of IT success, then I'd expect to see employees taking holiday breaks and paying their own way for instruction. That just doesn't happen (well, not anymore). Training resources, though, are definitely part of a successful consulting business, it's just hard to say which part (sort of like, where to spending marketing dollars). If the goal of a contractor is to be able to return a profit from providing valued services, then training should be targeted to assist that aim.
Here's what I think is weird about the topic of IT retention and training. Everyone says training is needed, but nothing is measured before hand or afterwards. Employers say they want the highest value for their training dollars, but they don't evaluate the curriculum beforehand. In running training programs for nearly ten years, I can't think of one time that a client has even bothered to interview the instructor. We've had clients spend tens of thousands of dollars, upgrading the skills of their staff, and no one even looks in to see if the trainer really is who he/she says they are. The entire expense is justified on the basis of student evaluations. There are the same students who are in the class to learn about something they didn't know.
After taking a class, students aren't expected to do anything more with their learning experience other than begin to bring it into the work site. But, did any learning occur? How much and how well? I consider this ambiguity disingenuous, because both the employer and the employee are frequently complicit in ignoring that there are certification exams that correspond to the instruction.
So, here's my take. Yes, employees should get training as part of their job. But, it should be seen as the cost-of-being-an-IT-professional for both sides. The employer pays, and the employee learns and puts it to use. Raises, bonuses and such should be tied in to the economics of the job not how many pieces of paper are on the wall (now, this could be a very long topic).
Employers should only pay for training in which the IT worker is willing to pass certification exams. I know that not everything has certification attached to it, but most of the courses are vendor specific and are associated with a certification track. Pass the exam, and you're qualified to take another course.
Most of the time, I think this is a fair solution.
The discussion on IT retention and training continues with the reflections of Kit Davis and Stephan Wissel. I've known Kit for many years, as he sponsored the original DC Notes User Group. Stephan presented at Lotusphere '06 on WebDAV, and I was fortunate to run into him during the Sunday night event. Both of these professionals come with significant experience and insight.
Stephan makes a compelling argument that it is our responsibility to articulate the cost of poor management decisions:
Once we make things measurable, even if the benchmarks are rather blurry, we find common ground with the management to negotiate. Once you master the skill and the situation doesn't improve (because you got one of them) it is time to move on. You new company will appreciate your ability to "speak management".
Absolutely.
It is truly amazing, isn't it, how some IT workers will try to shove through decisions on the basis of their expertise alone. I know of one instance where a messaging upgrade was killed at the very last minute (after months of planning), because the IT director couldn't estimate the benefits of upgrading to the CFO in an elevator.
Kit draws on his experience of employees expecting a raise for simply attending a class (after taking off a week of billable hours).
My argument is that to a greater extent, (particularly in the DC consulting world) it is not always in management’s best interest to have staff trained in the latest and greatest.
Absolutely.
If training were truly the engine of IT success, then I'd expect to see employees taking holiday breaks and paying their own way for instruction. That just doesn't happen (well, not anymore). Training resources, though, are definitely part of a successful consulting business, it's just hard to say which part (sort of like, where to spending marketing dollars). If the goal of a contractor is to be able to return a profit from providing valued services, then training should be targeted to assist that aim.
Here's what I think is weird about the topic of IT retention and training. Everyone says training is needed, but nothing is measured before hand or afterwards. Employers say they want the highest value for their training dollars, but they don't evaluate the curriculum beforehand. In running training programs for nearly ten years, I can't think of one time that a client has even bothered to interview the instructor. We've had clients spend tens of thousands of dollars, upgrading the skills of their staff, and no one even looks in to see if the trainer really is who he/she says they are. The entire expense is justified on the basis of student evaluations. There are the same students who are in the class to learn about something they didn't know.
After taking a class, students aren't expected to do anything more with their learning experience other than begin to bring it into the work site. But, did any learning occur? How much and how well? I consider this ambiguity disingenuous, because both the employer and the employee are frequently complicit in ignoring that there are certification exams that correspond to the instruction.
So, here's my take. Yes, employees should get training as part of their job. But, it should be seen as the cost-of-being-an-IT-professional for both sides. The employer pays, and the employee learns and puts it to use. Raises, bonuses and such should be tied in to the economics of the job not how many pieces of paper are on the wall (now, this could be a very long topic).
Employers should only pay for training in which the IT worker is willing to pass certification exams. I know that not everything has certification attached to it, but most of the courses are vendor specific and are associated with a certification track. Pass the exam, and you're qualified to take another course.
Most of the time, I think this is a fair solution.
- 
Comments
Posted by Kit Davis At 10:07:40 PM On 02/08/2006 | - Website - |