A Growing Trend amongst Employers to Prefer In-House Education - Essay Example

Employers’ Preference for “In-House” Education Large national employers have different recruitment and training strategies, and practices. Their viewof staff qualifications, recruitment priorities, attitude towards the wider skill policy agenda, and their training policies differ considerably. In 2007, IES (Institute for Employment Studies) conducted a research in UK (United Kingdom) among the large national employers to gain an insight into their training and recruitment strategies and practices. Four issues were looked at and they include their perceptions on staff qualifications, recruitment priorities, their attitude in regard to the skills policy agenda, and their training policies (Johnson 2008, par. 1). In regard to the recruitment priorities, 69 percent (two thirds of the employers) gave the same preference to internal and external applicants for their huge occupational group. Some employers had the feeling that they lacked a choice about whether to train in-house or to recruit ready-skilled staff. This is because of the employer’s perception of the lack of a ready-skilled applicant in the United Kingdom. 43percent of these employers recruited staff from overseas for their main occupational groups. The main reason was that they felt there were no enough applicants in UK labour market with the required types of skills (Johnson 2008, par. 2). In regard to training and development, the employers thought it was the best way to retain staff. Responses linked to training and development included improving training for the line managers, improving induction, and enhancing training and development opportunities. All the companies researched offered training for their key occupational group. The training offered was mostly job-specific training, health and safety, and induction training for the new recruits. The main factors that influenced training included industry standards or regulatory requirements, introduction of new services, products or technology, and customer service needs (Johnson 2008, par. 6). From this research, it is evident that employers are developing a new trend in their organizations. They have substituted recruiting employees (such as managers) with various levels of education with in-house training or education. Training and specifically in-house training is the most preferred choice for most of these organizations. For instance, Masters in Business Administration (MBA) is a popular degree among employers and students. In the finance and consulting industries, MBA degree is desirable attribute as well as an important qualification. In an individual desires to advance in the mentioned fields (finance and consulting), lack of an MBA degree is a major disadvantage on one’s curriculum vitae. It is important to note that an MBA degree is a necessity in most areas of employment. The main challenge is to an employee who wants to take a full MBA; this is because of the distractions caused by working while still attending school. Managers in most small and medium-sized companies prefer or favour in-house training to MBA programs. According to these managers, in-house training is the optimal or best solution because the programs are taught by an individual with business experience, “rather than by professors who might be removed from the business world and not be fully aware of the constantly changing market” (Access MBA 2011, p1). Most of the full-time MBA students possess relatively small work experience and recruiters or employers frequently look for candidates who have sufficient/enough career skills in addition to the MBA degree (Access MBA 2011, p1). In other words, the professors or the instructors may not have enough information concerning the current market like someone who has business experience. This is the reason why most employers would prefer in-house education or training other than recruiting a manager (who has relatively little working experience) with degrees from conventional university sources. It is worth noting that the competiveness of any business frequently rests on the skills and quality of the employees. Training can enhance the productivity and performance of the organization’s staff and make sure that they possess the skills required by the business (Business Link 2011, p1). Small businesses prefer in-house training because it is the most effective means to enhance the skills of its employees. This is because the training is more consistent, relevant, and focussed to their needs, and it can be programmed at their convenience. Most of these companies prefer in-house training because of the fact it can be accredited as nationally standard qualifications. Thus, the in-house training improves their business profile and the skills of the employees (Business Link 2011, p1). In-house training is a daily responsibility for the employees and supervisors. Supervisors are entirely responsible for the company or organization’s productivity and, therefore, the need to train their subordinates. A major to these supervisors is that majority of them do not know the basics of training their subordinates, thus, they ought to be taught the methods of good training. They are supposed to be aware of the skills and knowledge necessary to create productive employees. Majority of the small businesses utilize in-house personnel to create formal training programs to be provided to the employees offline (that is, from their normal work schedule) (Iman 2002, p392). They are usually provided individually at programmed training sessions or during organization or company meetings. There are a number of outside training sources such as technical and vocational schools, chambers of commerce, consultants, economic development groups, and continuing education programs. Selection of an outside source for training has its own advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that these organizations are knowledgeable in the training techniques, which is frequently not the case with the in-house personnel. The main disadvantage is that they possess limited knowledge of the customer needs and the company’s services or products (Iman 2002, p392). In-house training is usually performed in the following ways; job shadowing, coaching, mentoring, passing on training, and knowledge banks. Job shadowing entails an individual showing another all the features of a certain job and it can cover most of the things featured in the job. The method is appropriate for the training of new employees as a component of the induction process. Coaching entails frequent reviews of the employee’s progress. It is usually carried out by the line managers who offer advice the employees on the ways to enhance their performance. It offers the employees with the feedback and it can be utilized to introduce new responsibilities or tasks (Business Link 2011, p1). Mentoring is usually used for employees at the chief executive and senior management level. It is a personal method to advice and coach the senior staff. The role is effectively carried out by an individual other than the line manager, probably by an individual from a different company, who possesses the experience and the skills to guide the employee and propose practical solutions. Passing on training entails an employee going for an external training and coming back to pass on the knowledge acquired during the training to the other employees. The method is most suitable for skills such as information technology. Knowledge banks entail using CD-Rom library, reference book, handbooks, and intranet. This is an effective means of offering basic information, which the employees can easily access at their comfort (Business Link 2011, p1). As stated before, in-house training can be offered to new employees or managers. This deviates from the notion that in-house training is to be offered to the existing employees and not to the new managers or employees. Managers possessing degrees from conventional university sources can also be offered in-house training or education to meet the needs of the company or the organization. For instance, Port Authority of New Jersey and New York developed a management training program for its new staff with master’s degrees. The program supplies the new managers with comprehensive information about the organization, its procedures, and operation of the agency. The program entails one-week orientation, “followed by two- to three- month rotational work assignments in various line and staff departments” (Farazmand 1996, p77). Orientation is performed by the top management, key staff, and the previous program participants. The advantage of in-house training program (such as that of the New Jersey and New York Port Authority) is that information can be modified to particular organizational characteristics and needs. Other advantages include; the training is offered during the work hours and the company or organization is taught in a unique way (MaRS 2011, p1). A disadvantage is that the training can be very expensive for organizations that are small. Regardless of the size of the organization, the start up costs can be very high for an organization that does not possess any form of in-house training program (Farazmand 1996, p77). Despite the disadvantages of in-house training, many employers prefer the method because of its potential benefits to the organization. Though the trend by most employers has been offering in-house training to its managers other than recruiting managers with degree from conventional university sources, there are some organizations that employ these managers the required in-house training; the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York is an example. It is important to note that companies with enormous need for customer service training might prefer to hire staff trainers to conduct in-house training. As stated earlier, in-house trainers can tailor the training modules to take into consideration the immediate company needs such as refresher classes or new hires in order to address problems that arise. In-house is very costly especially when full trainer(s) have to be hired. There is a high probability that the training can become stale or hard unless materials and methods are updated frequently (Philips 2011, par. 2). Despite the fact that most employers prefer using in-house training or education, there are many disadvantages using this method of improving the productivity and effectiveness of an organization. Existing inefficient business practices can be passed on or it can perpetuate poor business practices. The employee may fail to take the training seriously, for instance, they may fail to attend it on the basis that it can be offered another day. The training may require the provision of training facilities such as rooms and PCs. At other times, the employees may fail to be entirely honest about the difficulties and problems facing them (Business Link 2011, p1). Other disadvantages include; the training may be subjected to interruptions or distractions that may make the training difficult for the employee to learn, and the person conduction the training may not possess the required skills of a good trainer (MaRS 2011, p1). Thus, for an organization intending to use in-house training in preference to recruiting managers who have degrees from conventional university sources have to consider these disadvantages. Japanese management practices offer a clear picture of the growing trend adopted by many employers (preference of in-house training to recruiting manager who have degrees from conventional university sources). The manager’s education in Japan usually takes place on an informal basis within the firms. The number of Japanese executives have attained university education is high similar to that of Western Europe and United States. However, not many Japanese executives have done post graduate courses (or have attended graduate schools) in comparison to their European and U.S. counterparts. “In fact, only one Japanese university offers a degree analogous to an MBA, a key credential for managers in the United States” (Reference for Business 2011, par. 6). At the undergraduate level, formal education for the managers is not well developed. Undergraduate education or training is not seen by many companies as a way of gaining business skills. These companies base their hiring practices less on the recruit’s knowledge; emphasis is put on the general attributes such ambition and character. The companies do not hire individuals to fill particular occupations, rather, expectations from the recruits is to be flexible and to identify with the general interests of the company rather than the particular roles in the company. The mentor system is extensively used in the initial training of the management recruit and it entails the senior and middle-level managers serving as role models and teachers (Reference for Business 2011, par. 7). In-house education is emphasised much and it is linked to the traditional lifetime employment system. In this system, the management recruits were hired every April after university graduation; these recruits usually stayed with the company until retirement. The lifetime employment system makes it possible that the company will gain from its investment or venture in training. The system also enables the company to create long term plans for the recruits training (Reference for Business 2011, par. 8). Management training is based on the regular through a wide variety of the company’s operations. The management recruits often start their careers as regular workers on the production line. The pattern of habitual rotation gives the managers the ability to develop a comprehensive understanding of the various operations, and thus with time, they are able to gain a rich general knowledge of the company (Reference for Business 2011, par. 9). In conclusion, there is a growing trend amongst the employers to prefer in-house education or training in preference to recruiting managers with degrees from conventional university sources. The trend has been attributed to the fact that many employers think that these managers though with their respective do not have enough work experience. For instance, they believe that in-house training is the optimal or best solution because the programs are taught by an individual with business experience. In-house education has been used effectively in the Japanese management practices; they practice lifetime employment system where the recruit is mentored by other managers until retirement. References Access MBA. (2011) The employers’ perspective: A full-time or an executive MBA programs? [online], Access MBA. Available from: [accessed 11 Nov. 2011]. Business Link. (2011) Set up in-house training [online], Business Link. Available from: [accessed 11 Nov. 2011]. Farazmand, A. (1996) Public enterprise management: International case studies, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Iman, A. H. M. (2002) An introduction to property marketing, Ta’zim, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Johnson, C. (2008) Recruitment and training in large national employers [online], IES. Available from: [accessed 11 Nov. 2011]. MaRS. (2011) Training and development programs: Butteriss on human resources [online], MaRS. Available from: [accessed 11 Nov. 2011]. Philips, C. (2011) Advantages and disadvantages of training methods for employees in customer service [online], eHow money. Available from: [accessed 11 Nov. 2011]. Reference for Business. (2011) Japanese management techniques [online], Reference for Business. Available from: [accessed 11 Nov. 2011]. Read More