An interesting and potentially far reaching article from Harvard University researchers, published as a Working Paper by the US’ National Bureau of Economic Research, Training Within Firms, offers potentially valuable insights for Australian VET providers, especially in improving the take-up and effectiveness of employer-led training.
The research involved trying to understand “the organizational frictions that may hamper the implementation of training programs within firms”. That is, what gets in the way of businesses doing more training, and more effective training, even when they invest a lot into their training programs?
The study involved an analysis of administrative data from three large businesses in Latin America: an Argentinian car manufacturer (1,800 employees), a Colombian restaurant chain (2,500 employees), and a Colombian retailer (25,400 employees).
The data included details on training participation, employee performance, absenteeism, turnover, promotions, and reporting relationships between managers and employees. It was supplemented by a survey completed by more than 750 middle managers covering personality traits, leadership behaviours, and management practices.
The research found that middle managers drive training participation even though they are not usually directly responsible for company training activities.
“High training” (HT) managers significantly increased training uptake:
- +45% in the car firm
- +55% in the restaurant chain, and
- +60% in the retailer within 8 weeks of the manger stepping into their role.
The study also found that HT managers are “sharply distinct from other (managers) in terms of some personal characteristics—in particular, their social skills and extroversion—and people-related management practices. Namely, they are more likely to involve their employees in decision-making, engage in retrospective learning, focus their attention on weak performers in their teams, and care about workers’ engagement and well-being.”
Teams led by HT managers had:
- Lower absenteeism
- Lower turnover, and
- Higher internal promotion rates.
And the employees working for HT managers also adapted better (i.e. they maintained or improved their productivity) during major organisational changes.
One of the key lessons for employers, and for VET providers working with employers, is that training design must account for on-the-ground implementation dynamics. Even when companies offer centrally designed and compensated training programs, uptake can remain low if managers do not actively encourage participation.
There is clearly a role for VET providers to work with employers to embed learning into operational routines and ensure line managers are engaged stakeholders—not passive bystanders—in workforce development.
There may also be opportunities for VET providers to partner with higher education providers to help improve the management techniques of middle managers and shift more of them to being “HT managers.” Such a partnership would have benefits for businesses right across their organisations (a) as they roll out training for frontline workers, (b) in terms of increasing productivity, and (c) if/when companies go through major organisational changes.
