This Tip explains that when I hear docking pay a co-investment in training, it raises many questions and concerns.
Is Docking Pay a Co-Investment in Training?
According to “Computerworld,” IBM apparently cut the salaries of certain members of their Global Technology Services group by 10% in September of this year. The stated reason? “Some managers and employees have not kept pace with acquiring the skills and expertise needed to address changing client needs, technology, and market requirements.”
They explained the 10% salary cut as a “co-investment in training.” This is despite the fact that IBM had traditionally paid employees for time spent in training.
My Questions and Concerns
This entire situation raises a number of questions and concerns for me.
Whose Responsibility Was It?
- Whose responsibility is it to see that managers and employees have the requisite knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs?
- Isn’t this something they should have identified during performance evaluations and goal setting discussions?
- Wouldn’t you think that conversations with clients, new technology and/or changing markets would have made the need for new knowledge or skills apparent to the employees and managers themselves?
Were the Employees and Managers Aware?
- Were the employees and managers aware that their expertise and skills were outdated?
- Did they try to do something about that, but found that there were barriers beyond their control? For example a lack of time for or access to the necessary training?
- This pay cut was only given to “selected members” of the IBM Global Technology Services group. Does that mean that the other group members have successfully managed to keep their expertise and skills up to date?
Why Were Some Successful?
- If so, why were they successful while the “selected members” were unsuccessful?
- Is it actually true that these “selected members” lack the necessary expertise and skills?
- Did documentation objectively show that their performance was unsatisfactory? Was their unsatisfactory performance due to their inability to meet client needs in the current market and to use current technology?
- Is this a mildly disguised attempt to prompt these particular staff to leave the company?
A Form of Pay for Performance
Other provisions would seem to indicate that this is really a form of pay for performance. The pay cut is only supposed to be in effect for six months. During that time, they expect the employees to devote one day each week “developing skills in key growth areas such as cloud, analytics, mobile and social.”
- Since these “key growth areas” are continually changing and expanding, won’t all staff need this training?
- This also begs the question, who will provide this training? Or are the staff supposed to seek it out for themselves?
- How will IBM determine that the selected staff members have satisfactorily attained the necessary knowledge and skills?
- Will the staff have to meet specific observable performance measures?
- The staff is expected to complete the 23 workdays when they focus on learning and development., Is there an assumption that their skills will be where they need to be?
Isn’t It the Organization’s Responsibility?
Obviously, I am not privy to the actual reasons for IBM’s decision and the provisions for its implementation. However, it brings me back to my first question. Isn’t it the responsibility of the organization to see that managers and employees have the requisite knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs? And if that is the case, and I believe it is, then isn’t it incumbent upon the company to pay for the necessary training?
May your learning be sweet.
Deborah
