Anyone who has worked in government knows about the training conundrum. It’s allegedly the most important part of enhancing employee performance and retention, but it’s also the first budget line cut when funds get tight.
How can training be both so important and dispensable? How can the whole program be so paradoxical in practice?
With millions of government training program beneficiaries, there are probably a million answers to that question.
My answer is that training is not always as relevant to the employee’s current or imminent work responsibility. Some training, of course, must be excluded from this discussion. Basic entry-level training of new employees, for example, is needed to teach relevant federal rules and regulations so these employees can apply or explain them to citizens during their prescribed work. But other courses, such as management, communication, organizational change, and certain specific computer applications courses, often fail to materialize tangible results.
One reason is that the organizational culture will overwhelm and prevent any breakthrough ideas emanating from classes like management philosophy, organizational change, etc. If your manager does not buy-in to the latest management approach or writing style, etc., then you will be unable to exploit whatever benefit you believe you gained through training. Second, courses dealing with new computer capabilities will be rendered ineffective if employees are unable to apply this new knowledge (like PowerPoint, Project Management software, Excel, etc.) immediately and consistently to perform their jobs.
Julie Sturgeon’s analysis in Government Executive (July 31, 2006) outlines how few resources are even earmarked for employee training.
Fred Apelquist, contributing editor