Too often, the language used when laying off employees demonstrates a complete lack of responsibility on the part of the employer. Every word or phrase is unpleasant: downsized, terminated, relieved of your duties.ย
You rarely hear an employer say: โWeโre ending your employment because we didnโt train you well, communicate, and provide feedback about how you did your job. We also didnโt manage to pay attention to your education. We knew weโd be automating many of the functions you currently do. But we didnโt think youโd be interested in learning the skills required for the new job. So, youโre no longer qualified.โ
Almost every statement regarding employment, especially its ending, absolves the employer of any responsibility. So, what would change if they owned that responsibility?
For many of us, the current challenge is that when we need something done and find someone who will do it for us at the rate weโre willing to pay, itโs like purchasing something we want. Thereโs a little celebration and swiping of the hands, like โphew, thatโs done.โ
However, when it doesnโt work out quite the way we imagined (and, to be honest, that we may never have communicated effectively), then weโre in the uncomfortable position of living with the disconnect or having to replace the person we thought would make our lives easier.ย
As employers, we often donโt do a good job of being intentional about what someone will be doing when they come to work for us, what they can expect from us, and what we expect from them.
In addition, individuals rarely take a job with a clear idea of what their next job, or the following few roles in the company might be, could be, or should be. This is a failure of both the employer and the individual.ย
There are reasons for this. We need a job done now. Then, if we can get someone to do that job now, we can worry about the future when it gets here.ย
Yet, when we discuss our businessโs future operating conditions, we have an opportunity to bring someone into our organization who could grow into multiple roles as we respond to market conditions. If we looked at talent that way and could see the benefit to the bottom line, weโd change how we look at talent.
The problem is that it takes a lot of work, planning, discussion, and intentionality, which many of us donโt have the time for.ย
But this is a part of business strategy. You can be sure that the most successful and scaled companies in the world do this. Moreover, they work hard at it.ย
This is where a lot of us need a wake-up call. Weโre stuck. We need to pivot. But to do so in a reactionary way will lead us to the wrong end.ย
Thereโs a great opportunity here. We must be smart and begin with step-change that does more than nibble at the edges. To get us where we want to go, we must be willing to work with other companies and non-traditional partners in our communities to build something different.ย
What companies like Amazon, Accenture, AT&T, Bank of America, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, and other progressive U.S. employers are doing around talent is relevant to leaders of small- and medium-sized businesses in the coming talent race.ย
Itโs going to change the playing field and put us at a growing disadvantage unless we act now and compete the way we can: differently, smartly, collectively.
In 2019, Amazon โ the worldโs second-largest employer โ made headlines by announcing it would spend $700 million over six years to retrain 100,000 of its U.S. employees for future jobs. Called โAmazon Upskilling 2025,โ this initiative represented a plan to upskill what was then approximately one-third of its U.S. workforce.ย
The goal was to create โpathways to careersโ for Amazon employees in health care, machine learning, manufacturing, robotics, computer science, and cloud computing.
According to many business experts, the commitment is poised to deliver numerous benefits to the mega-corporation. Among the benefits: itโs likely to make it easier for Amazon to hire and retain employees, gain a competitive edge over rivals, and help improve its image.
Some employers worry that, by offering marketable training to employees, theyโll leave or demand higher wages. But experts say there are net positive benefits. For one thing, younger employees tend to value training highly.ย ย
Many factors are driving developments like this, including analyses of future worker shortages, the education gap, and jobs of the future.ย
The companies taking steps to invest in their employees have recognized that the future workforce is inadequate to do the work that theyโll need to do to continue to grow and be competitive. These decisions have been highly vetted and based on a careful analysis of future needs.ย ย
Additionally, the companies making these investments will likely have broader consequences. With improved education benefits that can lead to future job stability, these large corporations will have a decisive competitive edge over other employers in hiring.
Just think about if you were looking for a job and one organization offered a salary and traditional benefits but nothing geared toward preparing you for advancement and the work of the future, while an Amazon or AT&T or Verizon up the road promised you a comparable salary plus education that had your future success in mind. Who would you go to work for?
If your goal is retention, youโve already lost the battle for talent. The goal has to be investment.
