Lizardbreath picks up on a hobby horse of mine:
Generally, talking about getting a job today, it’s a commonplace that you can’t get looked at for anything unless you have experience doing exactly that thing. It’s a Catch-22 for job-seekers: you can’t learn how to do anything useful in school, you need on the job training, but employers don’t voluntarily do on the job training anymore. And it’s not great for the employers either, because it’s hard to find people with perfectly tailored experience for your openings, so if you don’t expect to train your hires, you end up hiring any idiot who fits the slot.
I’ve backed off of this stance in recent years a little bit as I’ve looked back on working for more and more companies. I still don’t see anything like “willing to train” (and in the current economy, there’s not much incentive to). But thinking about it more, I have seen cases where people are promoted from entry-level jobs and trained to do something new. The key difference here would be that when the person is a competent mailroom clerk or something, they show up on time and so on, that they are more likely to be worth investing the training in for a better position within the company. The training is less likely to be worth it if they are a complete unknown, regardless of their resume.
There was an interesting letter to the editor of the FT about this the other week. I’d meant to blog about it, but never got around to it. The letter was in response to an op/ed by Mort Zuckerman about the importance of training and how America did a lot of it during the 80s and 90s. The letter writer said that was false. He added,
“Mr Zuckerman praises the US’s “labour mobility” as a reason for its economic success. But it is that very labour mobility that has caused US businesses to regard worker training as a dubious investment.”
And went on to note that German companies spend about 5x as much on worker training, which pays off in their workers’ advanced skills.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — January 2, 2011 @ 2:54 am
“I have seen cases where people are promoted from entry-level jobs and trained to do something new.”
Most of the companies I’ve worked for and training for a specific job (and the promotion that comes with it) has come from within 90% of the time. In many cases I’ve seen people are hired at a lower position (not entry level) with their boss having an eye on promoting them down the road if they prove to be a hard worker, a good fit with the company culture, etc.
You’re correct that there’s not much incentive for companies to offer trainig to complete unknown — esp. in this economy. That being said, I’m constantly amazed how many people — in this economy — will turn down job offers because they feel the job is beneth them, even when there’s a pretty clear track record of advancement.
Comment by Abel — January 2, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Dave, so how do you figure we should try to balance labor mobility (a general good, I believe) with the disincentive it provides employers to do training? More formal vocational training strikes me as one solution, but it’s not one that’s all that conducive to current post-grad studies. They would need to be shorter certifications rather than two (much less four) year degrees.
Comment by trumwill — January 3, 2011 @ 3:12 am
Abel, the sad thing is that Deseret far and away has the most industrious workforce I have ever seen. The “I’m too good for that” attitude was far less prevalent there than anywhere else I’ve lived. I chalk it up to the Mormon work ethic and the overall lack of even the hope of job opportunities that are actually good (assuming you’re in a more urban environment, the latter may not apply).
Half Sigma used to talk frequently about how bad an idea it is to take a job that’s “beneath you” because it puts you on the wrong track. He’s a big believer in job tracks. I think that there’s something to that, though it has its limits. There was a time when I might have put more stock in it, but I’ve repeatedly taken jobs I was overqualified for and lo-and-behold I got promoted to something more suited to my talents.
With the exception of a couple of jobs (the software bohemeth in Cascadia for a year and another job for three or four months), I’ve not worked for a large corporation. I do wonder if the track system applies much more to those more corporate environments.
Comment by trumwill — January 3, 2011 @ 3:17 am
I think the death of the entry-level job has been a black mark on this country. Not that I have a solution. Besides, I’m sure we have all worked with someone new who was supposed to have all these great skills but couldn’t demonstrate them in their new job.
I am old school in the sense that I think that college isn’t supposed to be vocational school. I think a company worth its salt should be able to train a bright sociology major to work for them. Vocational training should be left to DeVry. I realize my viewpoint is in the minority, but I am used to that.
Half Sigma used to talk frequently…
One problem that he has is that he thinks the rest of the country is like the New York DMA. From what I read, it isn’t. I don’t know personally, since I have lived my entire life here.
Comment by Mike Hunt — January 3, 2011 @ 4:53 pm
I agree, both that it’s not good and that it’s hard to come up with a solution for. I would be more likely to agree with you on the vocational school thing if college degrees were reserved more for the best and brightest and a liberal arts or classical degree actually signified something.
I think you’re right about Sigma. He universalizes from the NYC experience. That’s one of the big things about his “law schools that aren’t Top-14 are inherently worthless.” Good law jobs in most of the country (geographically speaking) are not filled with Top-14 students.
Comment by trumwill — January 3, 2011 @ 9:30 pm
I would be more likely to agree with you on the vocational school thing if college degrees were reserved more for the best and brightest and a liberal arts or classical degree actually signified something.
That is a very good point. Since the “college is for everyone” trend took hold, it doesn’t mean as much, and you can coast with very little effort if you want.
Comment by Mike Hunt — January 3, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Half Sigma used to talk frequently about how bad an idea it is to take a job that’s “beneath you” because it puts you on the wrong track. He’s a big believer in job tracks. I think that there’s something to that, though it has its limits.
I think HS is full of crap on this one. (Actually I’m discovering that he’s full of crap on lots of stuff lately–but that’s another discussion.) I’ve worked from companies both big and small and usually it wasn’t a big deal when hriing someone if that person had taken a “lower track” position. Usually it was a sign that the person was willing to work and most of my bosses have liked that. What kills people from getting seriously looked at (at least in my experience) is those with big unemployment gaps on their resume or the attitude that a job is beneth them or not part of their carrer track. Employeers want someone who will work–not someone who feels they’re above doing common tasks. (Maybe it IS a Deseret thing. Maybe if I worked in NYC, it would be different.)
Comment by Abel — January 4, 2011 @ 2:07 pm
Will,
Sorry for the delayed response — I just saw your comment. I do think more emphasis on quality vocational training in high school would make sense, but that’s not exactly the same thing. There will still be a need for more specific training by employers.
As far as labor market flexibility, I think we’d probably be better off with less of it, all things considering. But given the peculiarities of this country versus Germany (or litigiousness, legal restrictions on aptitude tests, etc.), I’d modify things a little: maybe keep it easy for employers to fire workers for the first 6 months or a year, so they don’t have to keep bad apples on indefinitely.
It’s worth reading more about the German system though (which was actually put in place by us, after WWII). Much of it seems to make sense.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — January 4, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
“I do wonder if the track system applies much more to those more corporate environments. ”
Oh yeah. Here in NYC you can’t get anywhere if you didn’t go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.
Comment by SFG — January 4, 2011 @ 9:33 pm
OTOH, he did live in Arizona for a while, so who knows?
Comment by SFG — January 4, 2011 @ 9:33 pm
“Oh yeah. Here in NYC you can’t get anywhere if you didn’t go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.”
I had a good friend who was making $500k+ per year working for a multinational bank/investment bank/asset manager, with its US headquarters in New York. His degree was from one of the less prestigious campuses in a state university system. Not a very bright guy either, but he was aware of his limitations and had a high “social IQ”, for lack of a better phrase.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — January 4, 2011 @ 11:07 pm
As far as labor market flexibility, I think we’d probably be better off with less of it, all things considering.
Would you limit an employer’s ability to lay off employees or would you simply eliminate (after the 6-12 month buffer) termination without cause?
Comment by trumwill — January 5, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
OTOH, he did live in Arizona for a while, so who knows?
I’m still thinking he made a mistake by leaving. I would be interested to know how many of his classmates are as far removed from law as he is. Many are, I’m sure, but I would be surprised if a law degree from ASU in Arizona were not roughly as valuable as a law degree by the University of Delosa in Delosa. I even know people that went to lesser schools in Delosa (and/or surrounding states) who seem to be doing okay.
Comment by trumwill — January 5, 2011 @ 1:45 pm
Abel, one of the things I really respected about Deseret was that they put a value on working, regardless of what your job was. A lot of complaining about employers, of course, but never followed by the chorus of “you should quit!” which was more common in Delosa and in other places.
Comment by trumwill — January 5, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
The letter was in response to an op/ed by Mort Zuckerman about the importance of training and how America did a lot of it during the 80s and 90s. The letter writer said that was false.
From what I saw about corporate training in the 80s and 90s: a lot of it was nonsense training in corporate fads such as Matrix Management, TQM, and Six Sigma. US corporations spent huge bucks on this crap, and I saw little payback from it in terms of increased productivity.
My theory is that as the older baby boomers moved into senior managment in the 80s and early 90s, they brought with them their unfounded faith in “movements” and fads of the 60s and 70s like EST, Rolfing, transcendental meditation, etc. They were suckers for the same kind of crap translated to the corporate world.
Comment by Maria — January 7, 2011 @ 4:24 pm
Maria, back when I was doing my comic strip I actually did a few on a fictitious management theory program. Shoot me an email and I will send them to you.
Comment by trumwill — January 7, 2011 @ 5:12 pm
I’m still thinking he made a mistake by leaving.
Look how much he hates proles. There may be personal factors he’s not willing to mention on his blog (and rightly so), but the amount of bile directed at the working class suggests he didn’t take to Nascar and cowboy boots.
He probably crunched the numbers and figured ASU was a better buy, didn’t realize how connections-driven the job market was, and got hit with culture shock out there. I always figure these law schools that lie about their job numbers are just waiting for a lawsuit. I mean, you’re basically churning out lots of unemployed, bitter lawyers, right?
Comment by SFG — January 9, 2011 @ 6:50 am