I view development in a company as a benefit just like 401k or health insurance. It is a way for the company to remain competitive within the labor market as an extra incentive or option provided. If an employee is seeking development opportunity (beyond, for example, merit raises) they can evaluate the job market to figure out where that is happening and whether the company providing this incentive is worth moving their employment over to.
In the case of this New York TImes article, losing an employee is a substantial blow to the company, one not quickly recovered from. It is not necessarily the job of this employer to develop his employees, but it will most likely be in his best interest to do. If providing development for employees is the difference between a senior employee staying with this company or seeking other opportunities, then it must be addressed.
But what is development? The author seems to equate it with promotion and supervisory positions. But I would argue that development is grounded in experience gained within career. What does the owner of this company have to offer that his employees may find valuable. Is he adept at priority setting or negotiating? Can he help cultivate this or any other beneficial life skill within his employees?
If an employer looks at development solely as an aspect of the specific job that the employee is in, or working towards, then the employee will still experience burnout, just a bit delayed. The employee must see how what they are learning in their professional career ties to their life. When you work to truly develop the person, you are always getting a better employee, an an employee who is more invested in the company they're working for. By removing the necessity for title change, the employer explodes his options for employee development.
No comments:
Post a Comment