Why Not Re-skill?

Why Not Re-skill? Recruitment vs. Re-Skilling

A survey from the Consumer Technology Association, the trade association representing the $398 billion U.S. consumer technology industry, which supports more than 15 million U.S. jobs and more than 2,200 companies stated the following:

  • 37% of those surveyed will displace workers due to technology advancements in the next five years.
  • Of those with displacements, only 52% of the displaced population will be re-skilled and retained!

My question is simple. Why will only half of the companies surveyed re-skill workers and choose instead to take the long, expensive, and risky path of recruitment?  Existing workers have already proven to be a culture fit.  They have cleared the hurdle of basic orientation to the way the company works.  They have already demonstrated the ability and desire to add their value to the company.  The tangible costs of new employees along with the intangible cost of layoffs to brand and public perception seem to far outweigh any costs associated with re-skilling.  So why the decision to jettison half of the displaced? How do executives view this trade off? What does this say about how L&D delivers re-skilling and the perceived value of it?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s