Employee Training and Organizational Performance in Britain
This paper examines the evolving attitudes of British employers toward employee training and development, situating the discussion within the broader context of organizational performance and international competitiveness. Drawing on industry surveys, academic research, and human resource management frameworks, the paper explores why training investment in the UK has historically lagged behind European competitors, how competitive pressures and changing employer–employee relationships are reshaping training priorities, and what theoretical models guide the identification, design, implementation, and evaluation of training programs. Key topics include Boydell's three-level training needs framework, Mager's behavioral objectives, Reid and Barrington's training interventions, and multi-level evaluation models including return on investment (ROI) analysis.
- Introduction: British Employers and the Training Debate: Historical neglect of training by British employers
- Training, Productivity, and the UK Skills Gap: UK skills gap and its effect on performance
- Employer Motivations and the Changing Employment Relationship: Competition, partnership, and employability driving training
- Human Resource Development and Training Design: Frameworks for identifying and designing training programs
- Evaluating Training Effectiveness: Multi-level models for measuring training outcomes
- The Economics of Training: Human capital theory and economic returns on training
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates empirical survey data (CBI, Mercer Human Resource Consulting) with theoretical frameworks (Boydell, Mager, Reid and Barrington), giving arguments both evidential grounding and conceptual structure.
- It acknowledges the central difficulty of the field — that a direct causal link between training and profitability is almost impossible to establish mathematically — and builds its argument around this honest caveat rather than ignoring it.
- The discussion moves logically from macro-level national trends to micro-level program design and evaluation, giving the paper a coherent progression from context to practice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of multi-source synthesis: the author draws on government-sponsored research, consulting firm surveys, and peer-reviewed academic literature to build a layered argument. Rather than relying on a single authority, each claim is cross-referenced with complementary sources, which strengthens credibility and shows awareness of the contested nature of training's impact on performance.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by contextualizing British employers' historical neglect of training, then moves through the productivity and skills gap evidence, employer motivations (including competition and the partnership model), and the changing psychological contract. The second half shifts from diagnosis to prescription, covering HRD frameworks for needs identification, training design using behavioral objectives, and multi-level evaluation models culminating in ROI analysis. The conclusion briefly addresses the economics of training at both firm and national level.
Introduction: British Employers and the Training Debate
It is a commonly accepted fact that British employers have neglected the significance of employee training. They justified this neglect probably on the premise that although training is a major cost item, it does not have a significant correlation with improvement in organizational performance (Hallier and Butts, 1998, p. 80). However, in recent years there has been a major upheaval in this line of thinking, prompted by industry experts and the fast-spreading public opinion about the impact of training and employee development. Employers in Britain are gradually but surely conceding to the fact that employee development does pay in terms of better organizational performance. Based on a research study sponsored by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, experts generally subscribe to the theory that skills training improves organizational performance and efficiency (Stevens and McKay, p. 55).
This recognition assumes great importance, as a direct relationship between training and profitability is yet to be firmly established (Ashton and Felstead, 1995, p. 35). According to the employment trend survey report published by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in 2001, covering 673 private sector organizations in Britain, employers rated workforce and management skills as the principal factors that will increasingly determine business success in the present and future competitive scenario. More than one-third of the respondents said there is a growing trend of shortages in the skills required to meet the rapidly changing needs of a dynamic market environment that is becoming increasingly global. This gap is affecting business performance and hence the profitability of stakeholders.
To meet this challenge, more than two-thirds of the respondent companies claimed that they have been increasing training expenditure. An important indicator of the growing importance of training is that sixty-two percent of firms offered financial support for training of employees beyond the needs of their current jobs. The majority of firms also provided time off and funding for employees who take the initiative of upgrading skills and knowledge through self-study. Yet the general perception is that the United Kingdom still has some way to go in training investment before it can catch up with major competitors in Europe and the new industrial competitors from the rest of the world.
Results of a study by Mercer Human Resource Consulting (the Britain at Work Survey) reveal that one possible reason for Britain's productivity gap compared to other European nations could be due to the lack of attention shown by companies in managing employee performance. The study, covering over 3,500 British workers, throws up some telling statistics: only 20 percent of workers feel that good performance is rewarded, and only a third of the surveyed workers believe that there is a significant link between performance and pay. Less than 40 percent feel that underperforming employees are managed in the right manner.
The study highlights that a lack of training among managers who conduct the performance appraisal process is one of the major concerns hindering effective employee management. For instance, only 40 percent of workers feel that their managers show concern for their career development, and just one-third are convinced that high-performing employees are adequately compensated in terms of promotions and incentives. The study also warns that organizations and managers are increasingly focusing on employee development practices that produce immediate results, especially in a recessionary economic environment. While employers may feel elated by quick returns on people investments, the study cautions that such organizations will eventually face a drain of talent when the economy returns to growth, as efficient and productive employees will shift to companies that have a genuine performance-rewarding culture.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.