Legislation constrains skills development process
CHRIS RICHARDS
WHEN ASKED to comment on the subject of education and training I was reminded of the privileged start I had. Four years studying maths and chemistry at university and then an incredible two years as a management trainee at Unilever. What did I learn? From the university days it was that no time spent on education was worth it unless you put in the effort yourself. Unilever taught me that for training to be successful, your manager had to take a keen interest in it. The manager needed to know what the intended result of the training was, and he or she needed to monitor the success of the training in creating improved performance. This aspect is so important that ISO 9001:2000 states that an organisation shall provide training, and shall evaluate its effectiveness.
Our industry has never been a shining star in the training stakes. That is not to say that the early courses put together by visionary Alan Cowell and trainers like Charles Dey were not of a high quality. It is also not suggesting that companies have not spent money on sending employees on courses. The problem lies in the commitment to raising the level of performance and taking ownership of this responsibility. It is too easy for management to clear its conscience by expending its training budget and registering individuals on one or two short courses. Has this approach made the industry any better? And if management is not leading the way, how much dedication can one expect from employees?
With this ingrained “industry” attitude, there is another critical question - how can we expect learnerships to be given the attention they deserve? How long will it take for our industry to emulate the Germans, arguably the best internationally at developing forwarders with zeal and ability?
Regrettably, our skills development process, structured as it is through Setas and chambers, and constrained by legislation, is not facilitating training. Companies are not encouraged to spend their skills levy credits and many are simply writing these off as an unavoidable expense. At the other end of the scale, training providers receive no encouragement. Administrative requirements add to costs, and there is no consultation.
