SKILLS AND EMPLOYABILITY

There are a number of employers who do not support qualifications because they make the skills people possess more transparent and thus facilitate an easier change of employers. This concern by some employers is not a new one and is not confined to contact centres; however, it does illustrate the tensions that exist for both employers and employees about the extent to which they will invest in developing skills.

Employers need staff who can perform their jobs competently and for this reason will invest in induction training. Similarly, if individuals wish to gain skills they too must invest in their own training. Thus, in the short term employers’ and employees’ interests coincide because both want to perform in their job and raise productivity.

On the other hand, the longer-term interests of companies and workers may differ because the firm that invests in sector-specific training for employees will raise their skills and make them more attractive to other organizations. These ‘investors in people’ may see their employees being attracted to other organizations that offer be er prospects and higher salaries. In a buoyant labour market with high turnover of staff there is an attraction for some firms to offer higher wages and poach trained employees while investing less in training for their own employees.

Training can be divided into organization-specific training, which is of little value to other employers, and general training, which is transferable. If organizations distinguish their training along these lines it may impact on decisions about the amount and type of training provided in order to minimize employee defections.

It is not just employers who may have reservations about investing in the training of their staff. Employees, too, may hesitate to develop their skills because of financial stringencies and uncertainty about the future benefits from investing in training.

Because of these obstacles to training investment there has been government intervention in some countries to provide vocational education. However, in newly emerging sectors the establishment of vocational education qualifications etc takes time and for this reason many firms take responsibility for their own training.

Research into employees’ perceived mobility benefits of training did not produce detrimental findings for employers. In general, ‘training does not significantly affect the perceived labour market perspectives of call centre agents’. The exception to this was for people who had firm-specific training who were less inclined to consider a job elsewhere. They continue, ‘All this is good news for firms offering general, sector-specific, and firm-specific training, since their investments will not increase the expected job mobility of call centre agents’.