Although employees in low-skilled jobs are as likely as any others to express an interest in receiving training, they actually submit significantly fewer applications for training. How can this gap be explained? While a wish to receive training goes hand in hand with employees’ perception of their career prospects, in conjunction with their aspirations, the submission of applications for training is determined more by companies’ practices.
Submission of applications for training influenced by company context
Despite the widespread interest in training expressed by employees of all levels of qualification, the share of those who have actually submitted an application for training is as unequally distributed as actual access to training.Thus 56% of managers and executives took part in at least one vocational training during the 18 months preceding the survey, compared with 22% of low-skilled workers. Employees in low- skilled jobs are also those who submitted the fewest applications for training in the previous 12 months (19% of low-skilled workers compared with 50% of managers and executives).
While a wish to take part in training reflects individuals’ needs and aspirations submitting an application is determined more by the practices and rules, either tacit or explicit, put in place by employers and internalised by employees.
Consequently, can employees who do not submit applications be considered responsible for the shortfall of their training? Being an ‘actor’ in their own training requires an ability to identify and select a training that matches their aspirations, and then to express their wishes, make themselves heard and so on. The context of the company, its training practices and, more broadly, its approach to human resource management play a major role here. They determine the possibilities of dialogue between employer and employee about the latter’s career development. In concrete terms, what is required are practices likely to foster exchanges that are both personalised (interviews with management devoted to de ning training needs) and supported by collective decision making (notably through the employee representatives). Such practices encourage transparency (dissemination of information on training opportunities) and leave room for personal choice (opportunity to express an opinion about the content of proposed training, for example). In our analysis, all these aspects seem to encourage employees to submit applications for training (cf. table p. 4).
Chosen excerpts by Job Market Monitor. Read the whole story at Company-based training vs. employees’ aspirations / Training and employment / publications / accueil – Céreq – Centre d’études et de recherches sur les qualifications