Something just never did add up to me.
Here's what I originally shared on LinkedIn:
This one cuts both ways.
This is a "made up" policy for the sake of the comic, but the reality _across industries_ is that $ often is spent on those in-the-middle of their careers.
They under-train the new "fresh out of school" employees - thinking they're good for a few years. Then, they apply what could be deemed #agediscrimination logic (which believe it or not only is possible after age 40 - after which point you cross over into a protected category) to not invest in the "heavily-seasoned" employees.
Sometimes you do at least see funds focused on training and retaining emerging professionals. I've seen a few examples of this over the years. Would love to see them focused on retaining our older populations; I've seen too many older employees retire before they needed to because they felt their ideas were no longer heard and their experience no longer valued (until of course they left and took with them all of that institutional knowledge that no one listened to for so long!)
Do you see this happening in your own field? Who does it seem to be affecting the most?
Hopefully today's #TeachedUpComics makes a few folks think about providing _meaningful_ and employee-valued #training to those they have the power to help.
Now look, this might be complete bull when you look at organizations as a whole. Maybe I'm talking out the side of my nose, here, with the younger-end of the spectrum - I dunno. I do think, though, that I've hit on something with the older population. My suspicion is that organizations are going to shy away from costly PD for employees they believe are "on their way out." It makes good business sense, at first, right? Horrible for employee development and workplace culture, though. Not to mention WRONG.
|
Back to the Previous Strip | Onward to the Next Comic! 
