3 ms·

I personally think there two issues here: a) Expectations of 'Entry-level' actually being greater than 'junior/apprentice' b) Mentors not part of the role Bo

I personally think there two issues here: a) Expectations of 'Entry-level' actually being greater than 'junior/apprentice' b) Mentors not part of the role Both of these issues have arisen from a lack of willingness to have a long-term view and wanting immediate ROI, which I imagine has come about from the perceived view that staff don't stick around anyway. Set up proper trainee/cadet/apprentice programs, provide mentors and support and these staff will probably a) take the low pay at the start, b) appreciate the learning and support, c) stick around and d) create greater ROI in the end. Seems not to be how business operate now, and I feel it's painfully evident when I observe how many 'experienced' managers there are in charge of things that have no idea what they're doing. They also appear to often actually have no idea what capabilities they require and so just create industry 'roles' with the hope some experienced person will know what to do.

monocasa 9y ago
> I imagine has come about from the perceived view that staff don't stick around anyway. And that's because of the decades of employers destroying the relationship between them and labor. I'm never going to see a pension, and there are almost no more apprenticeships. Why should I as an employee invest in my company if the company treats me as a replaceable cog. The lack of employee loyalty can be directly linked to the Reagan-esque destruction of the labor movement, IMO. I have to watch out for myself, and therefore if push comes to shove, my needs are more important than the company's.
slfnflctd 9y ago
> lack of willingness to have a long-term view and wanting immediate ROI This is the core of your comment, and the rest of it describes the whole mess more concisely & articulately than nearly anything I've read. It's indisputable that being willing to train less experienced people leads to wasted money in the many cases where it doesn't work out. To those with attention spans longer than 6 months, however, it's equally indisputable that when it's done properly and does work out, it tends to more than make up for all the 'wasted' cases where it did not. There is a ton of untapped, eager talent out there just waiting for a chance. You may have to wade through a lot of duds to get a good hire, but in my view there is no better way to acquire dedicated employees who actually care about the longer term well being of the company.

monocasa 9y ago

> I imagine has come about from the perceived view that staff don't stick around anyway. And that's because of the decades of employers destroying the relationship between them and labor. I'm never going to see a pension, and there are almost no more apprenticeships. Why should I as an employee invest in my company if the company treats me as a replaceable cog. The lack of employee loyalty can be directly linked to the Reagan-esque destruction of the labor movement, IMO. I have to watch out for myself, and therefore if push comes to shove, my needs are more important than the company's.

slfnflctd 9y ago

> lack of willingness to have a long-term view and wanting immediate ROI This is the core of your comment, and the rest of it describes the whole mess more concisely & articulately than nearly anything I've read. It's indisputable that being willing to train less experienced people leads to wasted money in the many cases where it doesn't work out. To those with attention spans longer than 6 months, however, it's equally indisputable that when it's done properly and does work out, it tends to more than make up for all the 'wasted' cases where it did not. There is a ton of untapped, eager talent out there just waiting for a chance. You may have to wade through a lot of duds to get a good hire, but in my view there is no better way to acquire dedicated employees who actually care about the longer term well being of the company.