Employee Reluctance to Training: How Do You Handle Commitment Concerns?

Handling Employee Reluctance for Training

Here is a situation where training is identified for an employee, but he is not ready or willing to take up the training as he will have to continue services for at least one year after completing the training. How do we handle such cases? One way to address this is to reflect it in the appraisal rating. What are the other ways? Please provide your views.

Thanks

Regards

I see a larger picture that the person is not willing to stick around for the 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 matter; attending matters. Is the training being nominated for the issue of capability in the existing work being performed by this person, or is it a new product/service in the pipeline for which he/she is being considered?

It may not be right to apply a standard rule and say the impact should be on appraisals. It's best to talk to the person and understand the reason why he/she does not want to continue beyond one year.

Regards

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 in case you are the only one responsible for all HR activities, then you must ask his boss to look into it and submit a 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 employee's response to training nomination. Pankaj has already covered that. Frankly, don't waste much time on this, neither your efforts.

Best wishes.

Reasons for Resisting Training

I will resist the training for many reasons:

• I don't see any value in the training.

• I think I already have the skill.

• I know the training sessions are usually a waste of time since they are not done well.

• I don't get treated with respect during the training. (I am treated like a school kid.)

• I am not convinced that the training is required.

• 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 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.

Dealing with Training Resistance

1. Our prime concern should be that 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 an agreement between both parties that the expectation is for the job to be done per required specifications and within organizational values.

3. Then state that, by experience, you know that a person who 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 them to take it and have a 1-year clause.

5. The best method is to have the employee themselves 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 their 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. Educate that this skill is absent in the person, and this training session will definitely equip them 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 (and hasn't given their 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.

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. However, he could be against the lock-in period that you are imposing after the training. He might be thinking that if a better opportunity arises within the one-year period of the training, this lock-in period could deprive him of that opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with imposing a minimum service clause after recommending the employee for some training. Companies impose this clause to derive the ROI for the investment they make in training.

Options to Consider

Now you have the following options at hand:

• Waive off the post-training lock-in period. However, this would be a departure from the laid-down policy, and that is not desirable.

• 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 a promotion in the coming year).

• Hire a new person, nominate that new person for the training. Remove the employee who refused to take the training (after giving him the 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, the organization's interests are important and not the individual's.

Other senior members may give further options, if any.

Regards,
Dinesh V Divekar