28.06.07 by Glenn Malkin
Businesses invest in training and development in order to enhance individual, team and organisational performance in a sustainable way. Surely then the important consideration when looking at a new development programme (whether internally or externally delivered) is about changed skills and behaviours demonstrated by participants, the impact that will have and how that impact will be measured.
That being said, why then does there appear to be an agenda around introducing increased certification and linking work based training more widely to qualifications? Is the benefit of this for the participants so they can add qualifications to their CV, for HR Managers so they know what they are buying from providers (and is that valid?), or for governement agencies who can point to increased workforce development statistics?
What do you think?
1 comment
about 1 year ago, Peter Blackeby said:
The reasons why a company invests in training and development are wider than just changed skills and behaviours in participants.
I believe that most also see links to creating an attractive environment which will help them to retain (the right sort of) staff and to encourage those with a desire to develop to join. Certification is a way of demonstrating that the development has credibility - and this communicates strongly to those who may be joining the organisation. It does build the CV and in the end may lead to an individual moving elsewhere in their career. However, being able to demonstrate that working in an organisation is 'great for your career' will pay dividends.
You see things and ask "Why?" But I dream things that never were and I say "Why not?"