From the Pros at the HR Support Center
Writing in Harvard Business Review, Seth Harris and Jake Schwartz argue that competing for skilled workers is a mistake—that organizations would be better served by growing the talent they need from within. Employers are often reluctant, however, to invest in training programs, and it’s not hard to see why. Additional skills may make an employee more “marketable” to other employers, and if the employee takes a job elsewhere, the investment goes with him or her.
The authors are well aware of this risk, but they note that investing in training and skill development benefits employers, even if some employees do leave the organization. For one thing, because employees prize educational opportunities at work, training and development programs can aid recruitment and retention efforts.
Another barrier to developing talent internally, however, is that training usually tends to be role specific. We might expect someone in an entry-level sales job to receive some additional sales training so he or she can stop making cold calls and start going out to meet prospective clients. We would not typically expect that same individual to receive training that’s unrelated to the sales job or career path.
This barrier, too, is easy to understand. Budgets are limited, and it’s usually not in an employer’s interest to teach employees skills they don’t need for their job now or won’t need in the near future. Why would an engineering manager want team members to learn about marketing techniques, sales processes, or customer service? That sounds like a waste of money, no?
In a work culture where roles and career paths are specialized, it certainly does. But hiring individuals with specialized skill sets, and keeping those employees on predetermined paths, isn’t the only way to build a team. Imagine if every employee in a company received a basic level of training in other aspects of the business. Nora, for example, might be her company’s graphic designer, but she’s also been shown how to conduct a sales call, create a budget, write social media posts, calm a frustrated customer, create a pivot table and analyze its data, interview a job candidate, and facilitate the development of a new product. In turn, Nora has taught her colleagues some of the basics of graphic design.
This approach, called “cross training,” creates versatile employees who can move about within the organization outside of the routes originally dictated by their specialized skill sets. It establishes a work environment where someone’s place in the organization isn’t limited by the skills the employee came in with or team he or she started on.
Cross-training also has the benefit of exposing employees to what their coworkers do in the organization. Cross-team collaboration is difficult for a lot of organizations because different teams have different ways of operating, different priorities, and different needs—and the people on those teams often don’t understand and appreciate those differences. Putting on someone else’s work shoes and hat can help us see another’s work world from his or her perspective.
In practice, cross-training is more common in smaller organizations where there aren’t enough employees for everyone to wear a separate hat. It’s much more difficult and less cost-effective for larger organizations where there are people with the same or similar specialized roles.
Team-Focus vs. Task-Focus
For organizations both large and small, some of the benefits of cross-training can be realized by taking a team-focused rather than task-focused approach to employment. In a task-focused workplace, people apply and get hired for a job—a set of tasks—and to the extent that they have to work with others, they’re part of a team. The team forms almost as more of a byproduct of individuals doing their work in tandem. In contrast, in a team-focused workplace, people join the company to be on a team, one that works together to complete the needed tasks. The difference here is subtle, but it can make a big difference in how employers and employees see one another.
When people are hired merely to fill positions, their connection and loyalty to the organization may only be as strong as their interest in the job duties on a given day. If they grow tired of doing their assigned tasks, they’ll naturally look for positions that better suit their interests. They wanted to do certain jobs, but those jobs aren’t motivating them anymore, so there’s no use sticking around if their employer has nothing else of interest to them. Conversely, if the tasks they do cease to be of value to the organization, and there are no immediate positions available that match their skill sets in the organization, the employees will no doubt be let go.
When employees are hired to be on a team, they’re part of something that extends beyond their current job duties. They’re attached not simply to a set of tasks, but to a community of people. There are tasks to perform, of course, but these assignments are seen not as belonging simply to individuals, but as the responsibility of the team to manage. Team-focused leaders aren’t just intent on keeping the positions they manage filled, but in creating a team, developing that team, preparing it for future needs, and keeping it together.
Regardless of training methods, people will continue to join and leave the team when it’s in their interest to do so. But a team-focused approach to employment creates both broader and deeper social bonds among team members and their leaders, and if leaders are thinking about the future and preparing people on their team to perform future tasks (e.g., through upskilling and modern apprenticeships), the incentives for people stay with the organization long term are stronger.
Want to receive more helpful articles like this? The KMA HR Support Center provides regular articles and updates as well as sample HR forms, employment law information and more. Contact KMA today for your free seven-day trial at firstname.lastname@example.org.