Dear All,
Here is a situation where training is identified for an employee and he is not ready/willing to take up the training as he will have to continue services at least for one year after completing the training. How do we handle such cases? One way to handle this is to reflect in appraisal rating. What are the other ways? Please provide your views.
Thanks
From India, Bangalore
Here is a situation where training is identified for an employee and he is not ready/willing to take up the training as he will have to continue services at least for one year after completing the training. How do we handle such cases? One way to handle this is to reflect in appraisal rating. What are the other ways? Please provide your views.
Thanks
From India, Bangalore
Dear Aruna, I see a larger picture that the person is not willing to stick around for next 12 months. What is the end result that you intend to derive from this. Is it that training is mandatory.. whether the person learned anything does not manner...attending matters. The training being nominated for .. is capability the issue for existing work being performed by this person ... or is it a new product/service in pipeline for which s/he is being considered.
It may not be right to apply a standard rule and say.. impact should be on appraisals.
Its best to talk to the person and understand the reason of why s/he does not want to continue beyond one year.
From India, Mumbai
20It may not be right to apply a standard rule and say.. impact should be on appraisals.
Its best to talk to the person and understand the reason of why s/he does not want to continue beyond one year.
From India, Mumbai
Aruna,
It's not a training issue. He seems to be "disengaged" from his actions. You may pass this over to your HR team that deals with retention
or incase you are the only one responsible for all HR activities then you must ask his boss to look into it and submit formal report.
Discuss this with their HOD and let them decide what they wish to do with this employee. You can just see if some policy violations
are being made and stay compliant as you represent the employee side of the equation too.
This may help you find the real intention of this employees response to training nomination. Pankaj has already covered that.
Frankly don't waste much time on this neither your efforts.
Best wishes.
From India, Aurangabad
It's not a training issue. He seems to be "disengaged" from his actions. You may pass this over to your HR team that deals with retention
or incase you are the only one responsible for all HR activities then you must ask his boss to look into it and submit formal report.
Discuss this with their HOD and let them decide what they wish to do with this employee. You can just see if some policy violations
are being made and stay compliant as you represent the employee side of the equation too.
This may help you find the real intention of this employees response to training nomination. Pankaj has already covered that.
Frankly don't waste much time on this neither your efforts.
Best wishes.
From India, Aurangabad
I will resist the training for many reasons:
1. I don't see any value in the training.
2. I think I already have the skill.
3. I know the training sessions are usually a waste of time - since it is not done well.
4. I don't get treated with respect during the training. (I am treated like a school kid.)
5. I am not convinced that the training is required.
6. Since there is a bond after training - I don't want to take it. Now, I might or might not stay for 1 year; but, the bond is restricts my freedom. It is an unfair practice especially when I didn't ask for the training or when I am not totally convinced about the need for training.
Now, how do we deal with it?
1. Our prime concern should be: the job needs to be done per required specifications and within organizational values. So, if it is done as required we should not worry about the person taking the training or not.
2. First there has to be agreement between both of you that the expectation is the job is to be done per required specification and within org. values.
3. Then state that by experience you know that a person that has undergone training is the one who usually does it well. (If it is true)
4. You will have to reconsider the 1 year clause. If it is an expensive course, and you want to retain the clause then you cannot force the employee to take it. It is not fair to force him to take and have a 1 year clause.
5. The best method is to have the employee itself come up with the request I want to take the training. If you haven't prepared such a culture, at least try to show what is in it for the employee in the training course. (It could be a good addition to his resume, upskilling, etc.)
6. Or demonstrate that the skill is very essential for the current job/future job - without which the job cannot be done well. And 'educate' that this skill is absent in the person. And this training session will definitely equip him/her with the required skill. (Do all three of them with data/logic such that it can stand scrutiny from a third party.)
7. If the employee does not listen to reason (an'd hasn't given his/her reason) then it should go to the appraisal document and that too only after the fact that the job has not been done per the requirement.
From India
1. I don't see any value in the training.
2. I think I already have the skill.
3. I know the training sessions are usually a waste of time - since it is not done well.
4. I don't get treated with respect during the training. (I am treated like a school kid.)
5. I am not convinced that the training is required.
6. Since there is a bond after training - I don't want to take it. Now, I might or might not stay for 1 year; but, the bond is restricts my freedom. It is an unfair practice especially when I didn't ask for the training or when I am not totally convinced about the need for training.
Now, how do we deal with it?
1. Our prime concern should be: the job needs to be done per required specifications and within organizational values. So, if it is done as required we should not worry about the person taking the training or not.
2. First there has to be agreement between both of you that the expectation is the job is to be done per required specification and within org. values.
3. Then state that by experience you know that a person that has undergone training is the one who usually does it well. (If it is true)
4. You will have to reconsider the 1 year clause. If it is an expensive course, and you want to retain the clause then you cannot force the employee to take it. It is not fair to force him to take and have a 1 year clause.
5. The best method is to have the employee itself come up with the request I want to take the training. If you haven't prepared such a culture, at least try to show what is in it for the employee in the training course. (It could be a good addition to his resume, upskilling, etc.)
6. Or demonstrate that the skill is very essential for the current job/future job - without which the job cannot be done well. And 'educate' that this skill is absent in the person. And this training session will definitely equip him/her with the required skill. (Do all three of them with data/logic such that it can stand scrutiny from a third party.)
7. If the employee does not listen to reason (an'd hasn't given his/her reason) then it should go to the appraisal document and that too only after the fact that the job has not been done per the requirement.
From India
Dear aruna,
This is in addition to what Pankaj has written.
The employee in question may not be against the training or learning per se. But he could be against the lock-in period that you are imposing after the training. He could be thinking that should there be better opportunity in one year period of the training, this lock-in period could deprive him that opportunity.
There is nothing wrong in imposing minimum service clause after recommending the employee for some training. Companies impose this clause so has to derive the ROI for the investment that they do in training.
Now you have following options at hand:
a) Waive off the post-training lock-in period. However, this would be departure from the laid down policy and that is not desirable.
b) Nominate someone else for the training in lieu of this employee. However, make an entry in his performance appraisal for the refusal and let him be deprived of some seniority of his promotion (provided he is due for promotion in coming year).
c) Hire a new person, nominate that new person for the training. Remove the employee who refused to take the training (after giving him notice period as per the terms of his employment). If you avail of this option, it will send a signal to one and all that your company means business and management does not buckle under the pressure of some employee. Finally organisation's interests are important and not individual's.
Other senior members may give further options, if any.
Ok...
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
This is in addition to what Pankaj has written.
The employee in question may not be against the training or learning per se. But he could be against the lock-in period that you are imposing after the training. He could be thinking that should there be better opportunity in one year period of the training, this lock-in period could deprive him that opportunity.
There is nothing wrong in imposing minimum service clause after recommending the employee for some training. Companies impose this clause so has to derive the ROI for the investment that they do in training.
Now you have following options at hand:
a) Waive off the post-training lock-in period. However, this would be departure from the laid down policy and that is not desirable.
b) Nominate someone else for the training in lieu of this employee. However, make an entry in his performance appraisal for the refusal and let him be deprived of some seniority of his promotion (provided he is due for promotion in coming year).
c) Hire a new person, nominate that new person for the training. Remove the employee who refused to take the training (after giving him notice period as per the terms of his employment). If you avail of this option, it will send a signal to one and all that your company means business and management does not buckle under the pressure of some employee. Finally organisation's interests are important and not individual's.
Other senior members may give further options, if any.
Ok...
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING (S.H.I.T).gif
HR Generalist Practical Training in Delhi.pdf