Employee Champion vs. Strategic Partner
June 30, 2006
I was in a policy review and formulation meeting a few weeks back, and our group had a healthy exchange of opinion on this issue:
Should HR still extend to resigning employees the privilege to participate in training programs?
My colleagues believed this privilege should no longer be extended since ROI can not be expected. Allowing participation is tantamount to bad investment decision.
I offered a dissenting opinion since I believe the thoughts and contribution of a resigning employee in a workshop or group work is equally important. Furthermore, his decision to leave the organization should not be taken against him.
The debate is a toss between two HR roles– a business partner and an employee champion.
As business partner, HR should be capable of making unpopular but sound business decisions.
While I agree on that premise, but as an HR practitioner, should’nt we be employee champions first before a strategic partner?
What do you think?
July 1, 2006 at 5:18 am
employee champions are the ones who become strategic partner as part of their contribution. so keepin a resiging employee on training roll means clearly investing on leaving person and company is expecting in return may be in term of counter training to their employee, project guidance or quality taining ext. From employee perpective it’s pure employer state change and pre add on to use of that training.
July 1, 2006 at 2:55 pm
IF training is MEANT to focus on on-the-job effectiveness, it is definitely an investment where we expect immediate results as soon as the trainee returns to work. Hence, training the resigning employee will no longer be of value to the company as there is no assurance that said resigning employee would still make use on present work what was learned.
More so, if the training is meant to prepare or develop the trainee for bigger responsibilities.
joel
July 1, 2006 at 5:04 pm
With respect to the particular example, I believe that the resigning employee should not be allowed to participate in company trainings.
From the perspective of a “strategic business partner”, it’s like spending money to train someone who will not only cease to become a productive part of the company, but may also end up with a competitor. The thoughts and contributions of a resigning employee could be secured through the exit interview.
On the other hand, from the perspective of the “employee champion”, the employee knows, or should have known, that this is the effect of tendering his/her resignation. It’s really unfair to tell the company that you are leaving, and yet insist that you are entitled to further trainings.
Now, in general, which comes first? The “employee champion” and the “business partner”? This will be a long discussion =)
July 1, 2006 at 9:38 pm
There should be a synch between the 2 roles that of a strategic partner and an employee champion. Whenever an HR professional thinks only from a single angle, the interests of other party is not taken in to consideration. It s a WIN LOOSE proposition.
Instead the stand taken by the HR representative, should be like that of an entrepreneur.
A simple question would be, if you would have been running this business, would you allow a resigning employee in a training program. Would it be an investment or spend? What is your objective? Is it purely training people, and adding value to them or is it to get returns when you add value to them.
Once this fundamental is clear, from the organization point of view, I do not think that there would be any problem in drawing a prompt conclusion.
On a purely personal front, I would not like to employee who is leaving the organization to attend a training program, because I as an HR professional am here to facilitate business in such a way that the organization profits from it. From me it would not be a great investment proposition. The benefit that I would be deriiving that of creating a positive impact on the leaving employee would not matter much to me. If the investment of time and revenue is not sizeable, he could well be sent for the training, otherwise not.
July 2, 2006 at 4:20 am
A resigning employee should be left alone. After all, his days in the company are numbered.
Letting him participate in a training program will do him some good. Thus, it would just be a PR gesture of the company.
In fact, getting him involved in discussion of company-related issues, as this happens in training programs, may not be good for the company because the growth and survival of the company may have left the heart and mind of a resigning employee.
July 2, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Hi Sonnie,
It’s a really thought provoking issue you have raised.
In my experience we have to take the role of Business Partner therefore refrain the resigning employee from training Program.
From my personal experience – we all HR Professionals should advocate the Employee Champion.If the resigned employee attends the training program – she/he gets to learn and share knowledge with the participants, therefore the Corporate should keep in mind the long term interests/development of the employee even after he is no longer working with the Organization. This is the least the company should do for his past services with the organization and be treated with respect and dignity till his last day with the organization.
This sound HR practices creates a good-will and he would someday may come back to the organization.
Regards,
Rajat Joshi
July 2, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Hi Mr.Sonnie,
I agree completely with Mr.Rajat Joshi. I beleive that making the resigned employee partcipate in the training program is a good gesture from the companies side. But at the same time program is not geared for those who are to take up higher position in the organization , any way this guy has made his decision to move on / the programs target audience are those, the company believes, who will stay for the benefit of the company.
Rather than a functional training program the employee can be made to attend a behavioural training program of its kind.
Regards
Suvasini
July 3, 2006 at 10:00 am
Hi, I agree with Sonnie that resigning employee can contribute in trainings. But, getting the resigning employee involve in training should be with his consent. This would ensure that he understands his role as a contributor rather than receiver. Otherwise, the employee would be wondering what is he doing in the training room.
Regards,
Mages
July 4, 2006 at 9:29 am
Dear Colleague,
There is a difference between the word ‘RESIGNING’ and ‘RESIGNED’, and it requires different treatment.
However, I would still use the skill/knowledge of the resigning- or resigned-employee only if he/she got what the company needs to share for. We appoint him/her as the training contributors.
By doing so, we may cut down some dollar expenses for having an internal contributor ; cheaper than external. Plus! the possibility for extending the mutual relationship in the regular base. Therefore, we may increase the ROI possibility as well.
July 6, 2006 at 11:17 pm
The driving question is what value does the organization or employee receive from attending training? The answer is none. The employee is leaving and most likely will not be as motivated to learn or apply the teaching. The organization will not benefit from its investment. With that, we can not justify a return on investment when there is none.
As HR professionals balancing business partnership with employee champion, the best interest of the business should always be top priority. We must always be vigilant of policies, procedures, etc., that pose no value to the organization.
July 7, 2006 at 2:40 am
hi, its a good question to think over.
A HR professional is definitely working for the organization and is employee champion till the employee is with the organization.
An employee who has already decided to resign need not be trained as there would be zero ROI from his training.
And personally I would not like to have an employee who no longer wish to work for us to be in the training program.
Avinash Tyagi
July 28, 2006 at 8:12 am
Hi, I’m not an HR practitioner, just a college student yet I also have an opinion on this. I think this kind of situation is at the company’s discretion: whether to spend on an employee who will no longer be of benefit to the company. Yes, it would sound nice to include the resigning employee but in the end, he’s the only one who benefits (aside from good PR on the part of the company.) I think if I were the employee I would want to be included in the company training program even if I were leaving but wouldn’t hold it against the company if I were prevented from doing so.
August 3, 2006 at 6:45 am
If I have plans to resign and have submitted my resignation it is an acceptable fact that I am ready to leave future responsibilites to the employees that would take my place who will be an asset to the company. Cutting On going trainings or future trainings prior to my resignation would be well understood knowing that one of the reason of my resignation is not wanting to be a part of the company’s future business.
But If they continue to offer trainings not only for the benefit of their own staffs but other companies as well, they are heroes. Who knows, maybe that employee might end up owning the competitors company someday and bring back good returns.
December 8, 2007 at 6:14 am
The downside to an employee champion arguement is that you are assuming that the resigning employee will not interfear with purpose of the training. It also assumes that it will not have an impact on morale.
While the arguement of an employee champion is noble and honerable, the more common view of the situation is that IT IS A POOR ROIThe downside to an employee champion argument is that you are assuming that the resigning employee will not interfere with purpose of the training. It also assumes that it will not have an impact on morale of those attending the training. I can image a situation where the leaving staff disrupts the training, thus diminishing the entire program for all.
While the argument of an employee champion may noble and honorable and altruistic. The more common view of the situation is that it would be a poor decision. Companies are not social or welfare states, they are capitalist ventures that have demands on time and money. So this begs the question: Why train a staff member that is leaving, even under good conditions? Why not extend the training to another remaining staff member?
Why train a staff member that is leaving, even under good conditions? Why not extend the training to another remaining staff member.
January 11, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Training is mostly company specific especially to the freshers and role specific to the human resource who have been with the company for a while.Hence if the business objective by training the HR is not achieved, it is more sensible not to be considering the resigning HR for the training