More On IT Retention and Dissatisfaction
Category Management
Now that Ben Poole has picked up the discussion on IT retention, I'd like to add another spin to the original context of my posting. I appreciate the response of Ben and Kevin Pettitt, and I respectfully agree that there are always voices of disappointment when it comes to measuring job satisfaction. And, I concur that mismanagement and misunderstanding perpetuate the natural drain into chaos against which we all struggle with our career development. Life's not fair, and anyone's scuffle for professional status is going to be a microcosm of the larger universe. I have reason for hope, but let me sketch out how I understand training and IT worker's retention.
For me, when regarding IT retention, it is the specific topic of "learning" that I find to be particularly interesting. We are supposed to be Knowledge Workers. We are employees who have evolved past the DNA of the industrial age, rising into a job state of self-initiation. Yet, most IT work sites do a very poor job of identifying which technical skills are needed, when they are needed, who should receive the skills, and how they are to receive these capabilities.
Everyone who is reading my blog, and Kevin's and Ben's (and everyone's and anyone else's) are already taking responsibility for establishing their own knowledge base. Everyone who participates are even further along managing their career. You are all poster-perfect representations of IT workers who would make Peter Drucker proud. You may not be completely happy, or even satisfied, but I do know many of you, and from what I see, you are all trailblazing just fine.
But, not everyone else.
This next week, I'll be spending time with a crew of Domino newbie programmers. Can you guess what percentage will even know what a blog is? It's usually around 10 percent. How many even know there are Domino-oriented blogs? None.
It is in the context of these IT workers who are beginning the transition into Knowledge Workers that I think the CTIA study has validity, as it concerns the appropriate equipping of IT workers. It's not that upper management doesn't want trained staff, they just don't know how to value it or measure it.
The latest issue of Chief Learning Officer has an article by Jack Phillips, “Getting It Right: How to Learn From the Past. He makes some very concise points, but I think two stand out:
So, where's the hope? Turns out, many companies have started to figure out that knowledge actually has a tangible, quantifiable valuation. Business Week has a recent article on “Why The Economy Is A Lot Stronger Than You Think†Changes are being made in how the U.S. Economy is measured:
The statistical wizards at the Bureau of Economic Analysis in Washington can whip up a spreadsheet showing how much the railroads spend on furniture ($39 million in 2004, to be exact). But they have no way of tracking the billions of dollars companies spend each year on innovation and product design, brand-building, employee training, or any of the other intangible investments required to compete in today's global economy.
[emphasis mine]
It's startling to read that the slow recovery from the recession of 2001 is now being used as a warning for the enduring effects of discarding knowledge investments:
When companies significantly trim their spending on R&D, design, training, and other knowledge-enhancing activities, as they did in 2001, the resulting pain in terms of job losses and reduced innovation could deepen the next downturn.
So, training is back on the table. Greenspan's successor, Bernanke, has made comments that suggest he agrees with a need to update how the U.S. GDP is calculated. Once the Federal Government begins to add in the benefits of intangibles, then, well I guess that they won't be so intangible. Which brings us back to dealing with the management quandary of ignoring what can't be measured. When the benefits of training and applying learned skills can be quantified, then those who hold these abilities will also be valued.
That's good news.
Now that Ben Poole has picked up the discussion on IT retention, I'd like to add another spin to the original context of my posting. I appreciate the response of Ben and Kevin Pettitt, and I respectfully agree that there are always voices of disappointment when it comes to measuring job satisfaction. And, I concur that mismanagement and misunderstanding perpetuate the natural drain into chaos against which we all struggle with our career development. Life's not fair, and anyone's scuffle for professional status is going to be a microcosm of the larger universe. I have reason for hope, but let me sketch out how I understand training and IT worker's retention.
For me, when regarding IT retention, it is the specific topic of "learning" that I find to be particularly interesting. We are supposed to be Knowledge Workers. We are employees who have evolved past the DNA of the industrial age, rising into a job state of self-initiation. Yet, most IT work sites do a very poor job of identifying which technical skills are needed, when they are needed, who should receive the skills, and how they are to receive these capabilities.
Everyone who is reading my blog, and Kevin's and Ben's (and everyone's and anyone else's) are already taking responsibility for establishing their own knowledge base. Everyone who participates are even further along managing their career. You are all poster-perfect representations of IT workers who would make Peter Drucker proud. You may not be completely happy, or even satisfied, but I do know many of you, and from what I see, you are all trailblazing just fine.
But, not everyone else.
This next week, I'll be spending time with a crew of Domino newbie programmers. Can you guess what percentage will even know what a blog is? It's usually around 10 percent. How many even know there are Domino-oriented blogs? None.
It is in the context of these IT workers who are beginning the transition into Knowledge Workers that I think the CTIA study has validity, as it concerns the appropriate equipping of IT workers. It's not that upper management doesn't want trained staff, they just don't know how to value it or measure it.
The latest issue of Chief Learning Officer has an article by Jack Phillips, “Getting It Right: How to Learn From the Past. He makes some very concise points, but I think two stand out:
- Learners are not held accountable. For many programs, the learner must drive performance change. Without individual learner efforts, the program will not be successful. When pressed for reasons for not applying new behavior, learners are quick to blame others—usually their immediate manager. The real problem might be learners who refuse to change or accept responsibility. Learners can achieve success with learning if they are properly motivated to do so and are held accountable for results, even in the face of a non-supportive manager. Although they are required to learn new skills on the job, expectations should go further. Learners must apply what is learned and achieve desired results.
- Feedback is not provided or used. All stakeholders need feedback: employees on their progress, developers and designers on program design, facilitators on delivery and clients on the success of the program. Without feedback, the program might not meet expectations. The challenge is to provide a stream of information to a variety of audiences as data are collected. Reaction data and learning data are used to improve learning design and facilitation. Application data are provided to those who are involved in program implementation so adjustments can be made. Business impact data need to be communicated to clients and others so the entire group can see the value of learning.
So, where's the hope? Turns out, many companies have started to figure out that knowledge actually has a tangible, quantifiable valuation. Business Week has a recent article on “Why The Economy Is A Lot Stronger Than You Think†Changes are being made in how the U.S. Economy is measured:
The statistical wizards at the Bureau of Economic Analysis in Washington can whip up a spreadsheet showing how much the railroads spend on furniture ($39 million in 2004, to be exact). But they have no way of tracking the billions of dollars companies spend each year on innovation and product design, brand-building, employee training, or any of the other intangible investments required to compete in today's global economy.
[emphasis mine]
It's startling to read that the slow recovery from the recession of 2001 is now being used as a warning for the enduring effects of discarding knowledge investments:
When companies significantly trim their spending on R&D, design, training, and other knowledge-enhancing activities, as they did in 2001, the resulting pain in terms of job losses and reduced innovation could deepen the next downturn.
So, training is back on the table. Greenspan's successor, Bernanke, has made comments that suggest he agrees with a need to update how the U.S. GDP is calculated. Once the Federal Government begins to add in the benefits of intangibles, then, well I guess that they won't be so intangible. Which brings us back to dealing with the management quandary of ignoring what can't be measured. When the benefits of training and applying learned skills can be quantified, then those who hold these abilities will also be valued.
That's good news.
- 
Comments
During the last 10 years I have seen the view of training evolve from a “thirst for knowledge” to a means to increase compensation. I am well aware that the audience of this or any other similar blog is primarily comprised of people who are looking to increase their knowledge, but my experience has shown that many other IT employees can no longer be bothered to find knowledge on their own and moreover expect it to be provided for them. This was in many ways a result of the go-go atmosphere of the late 90s, but many employees still have a sense of entitlement when it comes to training.
I think there is great value in training and certification for both the employee and the employer but too often I have had employees go to a week of training and upon their return make a bee-line to my office asking for a raise since they are now trained. They are correct that they are more valuable, but unfortunately for the employer this is not always easily translated into higher rates, and while the customer may care about certifications and training when awarding a project, they care very little after the project is underway and certainly are not interested in paying more because the employee is now certified or trained.
Posted by Kit Davis At 09:36:31 PM On 02/06/2006 | - Website - |
That is a tough one, because it's really a balance. It's employees valuing training on more than a "it'll get me out of the office for a week" level, and management valuing it on more than a "it'll keep 'em happy for a while" level. Ideally everyone is working towards the same goal -- better use of technology within the company.
It seems to me that every time you start a new project that's supposed to last for more than about 4 weeks, it would be good to build some training time into the budget. Every time you do something new, it's an opportunity to evaluate current technology. Try it out, see if it fits.
Unfortunately, figuring out what the metrics of training should be is almost impossible. It's like one of those ROI spreadsheets that are assumptions on top of guesses on top of speculation. If the numbers you start with are arbitrary, then your results will be too.
Of course, if you bundle training in with projects, then maybe you could at least try to tie the success of the training in with the success of the project. Maybe that would encourage the IT staff to make the projects just that much more successful, because the future training opportunities may be dependent on them.
Or maybe not... just thinking out loud...
Posted by Julian Robichaux At 01:45:26 AM On 02/06/2006 | - Website - |
I'm looking at the same issue on the other side of the glass, from the perspective of management. If management can't measure the value of the intangible asset of knowledge and learning, then those who are knowledgeable will never be correctly valued. The reason I wrote “correctly” is because I have seen people who commercialize themselves as “wizards” and they create a lot of mystification over their technical abilities. Ordinarily, it's not the occultist of hi-tech with whom I interact, but the terrifically skilled professionals who are not valued enough. They do struggle to get training, the time for self-education, or even to find the encouragement that a new technique is worth the trouble to pursue (e.g, python or ruby).
Which leads to the second quagmire: if the training/learning/education thing is not being measured, then how can it be effectively managed? What is too much training? When is too much time spent learning? How much of a budget should be allocated for training? Is it the same percentage for every quarter, and for every project? How do I make sure that everyone on my team has the appropriate educational resources to accomplish their tasks?
I do see a lot of failures from poor training. And I see a lot of frustrated professionals who are fed up from management that doesn't give them the necessary resources to do better.
You are an IT managers dream, a self-directed IT professional. You know the old managers saying, don't you? "I wanted to hire employees, and all I got were people."
Posted by Jack Dausman At 02:09:26 AM On 02/05/2006 | - Website - |
Or, the only "training" people ask for every year is Lotusphere -- which can be a good training event, but it's not really the same.
Really, we're all in charge of our own education. If we're not learning things at our job, we're not trying hard enough. We need to be going to the library and checking out books about programming Java or PHP or C# whatever we're interested in. We need to actively push for new projects at work instead of sitting idly and waiting for them to come along. We even have to pursue knowledge on our own time in a lot of cases (gasp!).
So I guess what I'm saying is, that's great the training is "on the table", but even if it is, we can't just sit and wait for our managers to send us to training. We have to be pushing the issue ourselves.
- Julian
Posted by Julian Robichaux At 09:43:37 PM On 02/04/2006 | - Website - |