Should training be skewed toward high performers, or poor performers?
Many people in the workplace are no strangers to training, and in the process of job hunting, more and more people begin to pay attention to opportunities for training and development in addition to wages. In the minds of most people, only people with good conditions can get the opportunity of training, especially the opportunity to go out for training, but what Xiaokui said today is that many times we ignore the groups targeted by training, not just people with excellent performance .
For people with excellent performance, training can broaden their horizons, make them better, and become the vanguard of helping enterprises overcome difficulties and ride the wind and waves.
Should training be skewed toward high performers, or poor performers?
Many companies also attach great importance to the training and training of these people, but for those with poor performance, the first thing companies think about is how to eliminate them. panic.
No one is not suitable for the position from the beginning. Many people gradually give up learning and fall behind when they are walking. Instead of giving up an internal employee and spending time and energy outside to find new people, it is better to leave the internal behind. colleague pulled up. At the very least, they can have less adaptation period than external newcomers, identify with the culture of the company, and still have certain advantages in their work.
Let’s take a look at the benefits of increasing training opportunities for low performers:
Should training be skewed toward high performers, or poor performers?
- Reduce internal friction
Many people did not settle the account. It is not so easy for an employee to leave. Many people are reluctant to leave if they have to be interviewed. Before Xiaokui, there was a manager in the company. Because of her work ability, she was interviewed and asked her to resign. She was unwilling. It stands to reason that the labor law stipulates that if you are unable to meet the requirements of the post, you need to be transferred or trained, but the company did not do it, and finally lost a lot of money.
Not to mention losing money, she also told some of the disgraceful things her superiors had done. After tearing her face, no one was the winner. The leader also left shortly after. Isn't this serious internal friction? Instead of focusing on how to compete with external competitors, everyone focused on wrangling each other, which is harmful to the enterprise and not beneficial.
If she could calmly and let her go to training and improve her ability, things would develop in a good direction. The departure of a manager may take away a bunch of resources. Why bother?
Should training be skewed toward high performers, or poor performers?
- Save labor costs
Training is usually regarded by leaders as a good-looking vase of money. Packaging says that the company has training and attaches great importance to talent training, but it actually has no effect on management.
wrong! This is an extremely narrow idea. Maybe some training courses are really designed to make money. After taking them, I didn’t feel that there was any gain. But over time, I will gradually find that those who have taught training have a longer-term vision.
Many companies recruit people when they are short of people. They never thought about training people who are not performing well now to become the talents that the organization needs.
Training a person may require time and training fees, while recruiting a person needs to pay wages, social security, benefits, and the energy of various management services. In many cases, recruiting a new employee will be much higher than the salary of an old employee. Instead of spending so much money, the new employee will sometimes be unaccustomed to the situation. It is better to give the old man a chance to improve. The training fee can be much lower than the salary of one person. Well, this is a way to save labor costs!
Should training be skewed toward high performers, or poor performers?
- Improve organizational unity
Many poor performers are not a problem of ability, but a problem of method. If you can enable the excellent people to drive the poor people, it will not only improve the overall work efficiency of the team, but also enhance the relationship between colleagues, which is conducive to the unity of the organization.
Would a person work harder if they got the pull of the organization to make themselves better? After all, a company that is willing to spend its time on its employees is more worthy of entrustment.
Arranging the training of high performers is the icing on the cake, so training the poor performers is a blessing in disguise. What do you think?