Research Report
No 454
The Relationship between Training
and Business Performance
Andy Cosh and Alan Hughes
with
Anna Bullock and Margaret Potton
ESRC Centre for Business Research
University of Cambridge
The views expressed in this report are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills.
© Queen’s Printer 2003. Published with the permission of DfES on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Applications
for reproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements’s House, 2-16
Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ.
ISBN 1 84478 046 5
July 2003
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KEY
RESULTS .................................................................................................. 1
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
Executive summary of key findings ........................................................................... 2
The Survey ................................................................................................................ 2
The Case Studies ..................................................................................................... 2
Quantitative Modelling ............................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2
THE SURVEY PROCESS AND OUTCOME ................................... 5
The Sampling Frame ................................................................................................... 5
Sample Design, Target Sample Size, and Employment Size and Sector
Quotas............................................................................................................................ 5
Actual Achieved Sample by Size and Sector .......................................................... 6
The Survey Instrument ................................................................................................ 8
The Survey Method ...................................................................................................... 8
The Piloting Process .................................................................................................... 9
Further Data Additions after the Completion of the Full Survey ......................... 11
CHAPTER 3
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................... 12
Extent and Intensity of Training ............................................................................... 12
Business Planning and Training .............................................................................. 14
Labour Management Techniques ............................................................................ 17
Independent and Non-Independent Firms: Training and Human Resource
Management ............................................................................................................... 19
Labour Costs ............................................................................................................... 20
Competitive Situation and Innovative Activity ........................................................ 21
Growth Ambitions ....................................................................................................... 23
Skill Categories and Recruitment Difficulties ......................................................... 24
CHAPTER 4
TRAINING ACTIVITY ........................................................................ 30
On- and Off-the-job Training by Size and Occupational Group .......................... 30
Areas of Training for Non-Managers ....................................................................... 33
Areas of Training for Managers ............................................................................... 35
The Number of Training Days: Managers and Non-Managers ........................... 39
Staff Engaged in Training Provision ........................................................................ 40
Satisfaction with Training Outcomes ....................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 5
THE COMPARISON OF TRAINERS AND NON-TRAINERS .... 41
Training, Business Planning and Budgeting .......................................................... 41
Training Inputs: Staff and Facilities ......................................................................... 42
Training and Human Resource Management Techniques .................................. 43
Recruitment Problems ............................................................................................... 44
Changing Work Practices, Products or Organisation ........................................... 46
Innovation and Growth Objectives .......................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 6
TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE ................................................. 49
Self-assessment of Training Outcomes.................................................................. 49
Self-assessment of Business Performance by Intensity of Training Activity and
Size ............................................................................................................................... 50
Actual Business Performance by Intensity of Training Activity and Size .......... 51
CHAPTER 7
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE TRAINING MODEL........ 56
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 56
The Determinants of Training Expenditures .......................................................... 56
The Performance Effects of Training ...................................................................... 61
Summary Conclusion................................................................................................. 73
CHAPTER 8 THE CASE STUDIES .......................................................................... 75
Sample Selection ....................................................................................................... 75
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 76
Interview Method and Data Recording ................................................................... 77
Information Requested by the Aide-Memoire for the Face to Face Interviews 77
Comparison of the Training States .......................................................................... 78
No training in both 1997 and 1999 ...................................................................... 78
Trained in 1997 and 1999 ..................................................................................... 79
Did not train in 1997, trained in 1999 .................................................................. 81
Trained in 1997, did not train in 1999 ................................................................. 82
Training and Firm Size .............................................................................................. 85
Formality and firm size .......................................................................................... 85
On-the-job training ................................................................................................. 85
Training and Affordability ...................................................................................... 86
Human Resource Managers ................................................................................ 86
CHAPTER 9
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ........................................................... 88
The Survey Process and Outcome ......................................................................... 88
Sample Characteristics ............................................................................................. 88
Training Activity .......................................................................................................... 91
The Comparison of High and Low Intensity Trainers ........................................... 92
Training and Performance ........................................................................................ 93
Multivariate Analysis of the Training Model ........................................................... 94
APPENDIX 1 SCREENER AND MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................... I
APPENDIX 2 THE SAMPLE DESIGN AND RESPONSE BIAS ANALYSIS . XXII
Sample Design ........................................................................................................ xxiii
Target Sample Size, and Employment Size and Sector Quotas ..................... xxiv
Response Rates and Response Bias ................................................................... xxv
Response by Size ................................................................................................... xxvi
Response by Sector ............................................................................................... xxvi
Refusal Rates ........................................................................................................ xxviii
Response Bias Analysis ....................................................................................... xxviii
APPENDIX 3 VARIABLE LIST AND NON RESPONSE ANALYSIS ............XXXII
APPENDIX 4 THE CASE STUDIES ....................................................................... XLII
Chapter 1
Introduction and Executive Summary of Key Results
Introduction
The main aim of the study was to carry out a new customised survey of training
behaviour in UK firms and to carry out a robust quantitative analysis of the
relationship between training and business performance.
This report consists of 8 chapters in addition to this introduction and 4
appendices. Chapter 2 sets out the survey process and outcome. Chapters 3 and
4 provide a detailed description of the characteristics of the dataset assembled
through the survey, with a particular emphasis on an analysis of various
indicators of training activity cross classified by the size and broad industrial
sector of the firms surveyed. Chapter 5 provides a comparison of the market, and
management characteristics and practices, of firms classified into two broad
groups in terms of their level of training intensity. In chapter 6 we provide an
analysis of performance differences on a univariate basis. Performance is
measured in terms of the growth of employment, turnover and productivity, as
well as in terms of profit margins.
Chapter 7 provides a multivariate analysis of both the determinants and
performance impacts of training. This analysis uses appropriate techniques
including instrumental variable regression to allow for the possible impact of
variables which determine training intensity and performance simultaneously.
The performance models estimated include both linear and quadratic forms to
allow for the possibility of diminishing returns to training expenditure beyond
some optimum level. All the models are estimated across the whole sample and
two broad size classes of firms within it.
Chapter 8 provides a qualitative analysis of training determinants and effects
using a series of case studies of small firms. The sample was drawn from an
earlier CBR survey database to allow the addition of a time dimension to the
survey based on the essentially single data point estimates. Chapter 9 sets out a
detailed summary of our principal conclusions. The appendices present in turn
the screening and substantive questionnaires used in the survey process, an
analysis of the sample design and unit response bias characteristics of the
achieved sample, an analysis of item non-response rates, and the detailed
individual case records of the firms used in the case study analysis.
1
Executive summary of key findings
The Survey
In terms of survey methodology it was agreed, after careful piloting, that we
would adopt the telephone interview approach. This reflected two main
considerations. First, it assisted in carrying out the survey in a short space of
time, and second, because of the precision it provided through careful screening
and return monitoring in helping to ensure that the attained sample has the
characteristics desired in terms of firm size and sector. The success of the
survey in this respect is reflected in the attainment of the desired sample of 2500
firms and the stratification by size and sector sought. The technique used was
also extremely successful in attaining high item response rates on a very wide
range of variables relating to patterns and intensity of training behaviour as well
as the skills recruiting and market and organisational characteristics of the firms
surveyed. The result is one of the richest firm-based datasets relating to these
aspects of business and business training in the UK, especially in relation to
smaller firms.
The detailed analysis of item-response rates revealed however that the
technique was less successful in relation to quantitative performance aspects.
This reflected in part the wide range of information required so that a single
individual might not have to hand the full range of information required. In
addition to non-response there is also the possibility that respondents were more
likely, due to the immediacy of the telephone approach, to rely on memory rather
than look up the figures. As a result of this a substantial amount of additional
work beyond the original project specification was undertaken to obtain and
match company financial information from the FAME database to add to the
telephone survey data.
The full descriptive characteristics of the dataset are summarised in chapter 9
The Case Studies
The case studies revealed how important it is, in assessing training
commitments, to not simply take a snapshot of a firm’s training activity. The
studies revealed that many smaller businesses train according to their current
need and are influenced by their financial position. This means that the level of
their training activity can be measured only over a period of time. This implies
that the panel approach is more likely to reveal the true picture for these firms.
The panel approach, of course, also benefits the analysis in another important
way since it allows us to have a measure of training that precedes the
performance that is being measured.
2
Quantitative Modelling
The richness of the dataset has allowed the development of a sound
understanding of the determinants of training expenditure by the firms in our
sample. This is not only important in itself but also as an important first step in
understanding the impact of training on performance.
The key findings of our multivariate analysis of the determinants and
performance impacts of training expenditure per firm and per employee are as
follows:
Determinants:

The model of the determinants of training provision provides a very good
explanation of the cross-section variation in training spending by firms.
The estimated equation explains around 45% of the variation in training
spend and is highly significant.

Employment size is a highly significant and positive determinant of training
spend.

The length of time taken to train an employee, the growth ambitions of the
firm and difficulties in recruiting managers and senior administrators are
also significant determinants of training expenditure.

The recent introduction of initiatives to involve employees in work design
and practices is associated with higher training spending.

The use of more sophisticated management tools such as Total Quality
Management (TQM) and job rotation is also significantly related to higher
spending.

All other things being equal, a firm that is part of a larger group is likely to
be spending more on training.

The findings for firms with 100 employees or more are very much in line
with those for the determinants of total training expenditures by all the
firms in the sample.

For the smaller size group, with less than 100 employees, the existence of
a written training plan, and a director responsible for employees are both
important determinants of training expenditure per employee.
3

The analysis of the predicted quantitative impact of these variables on
training spending per firm and per employee reveals that these factors
have a material effect on the level of training expenditures.
Performance Impacts:
The analysis of performance effects, corrected where appropriate for possible
simultaneous impacts of variables on training intensity and performance, shows
that;

Employment growth is statistically significantly positively affected by
training spend per firm and there is some evidence for a quadratic
relationship, which suggests that there are diminishing returns to training
spending. However, in terms of quantitative ‘economic’ significance we
find a very mixed and weak impact of training spending on employment
growth.

The results for turnover are qualitatively very similar to those for
employment growth with a statistically significant impact for spend per
firm.

There are diminishing returns to the impact of spending per firm on
turnover growth, although this effect is statistically significant only for the
smaller firms in the sample

The level of training expenditure per employee appears to be largely
irrelevant for turnover growth.

Training expenditure per firm generally has a positive impact on the
change in the profit margin and the impact is greater amongst the smaller
firms in the sample.

When training is measured by the level of training expenditure per
employee, the impact on profit margins is much less significant in both
economic and statistical terms.

There is no relationship between productivity growth and training intensity,
either measured as expenditure per firm, or per employee.
4
Chapter 2
The Survey Process and Outcome
The Sampling Frame
The sampling frame chosen for the survey was the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B)
database. The D&B database is assembled from a number of sources including
Companies House, Thomson Directories and press and trade journals. An
alternative source considered was the ONS Inter-Departmental Business
Register (IDBR). The IDBR covers VAT-registered businesses and those
businesses that have PAYE schemes. Both IDBR and the D&B database suffer
from some degree of under-representation of sole proprietors. The main reason
for choosing D&B was speed of access to the data for sample selection.
Sample Design, Target Sample Size, and Employment Size and Sector Quotas
The sample design was based on stratified quota sampling of head offices and
single site organisations and included independent and subsidiary businesses.
Stratification was to be by sector (5 groupings) and employment size (6
groupings within the 5 to 2499 employees range).
The sectoral split agreed with DfES was based on the UK SIC 1992 and is shown
in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Sectors and SIC
Codes
Sector
1992 SIC Codes
High tech manufacturing
2416, 2417, 2441, 2442, 3001, 3002, 3110,
3120, 3210, 3220, 323, 33, 3530
Other manufacturing
15-36 excluding the above
Distribution, hotels
50-55
Financial Services
65-67
Business Services
6411-6420, 7220-7260, 7310-7620, 74117450, 7481-7484
This broad sectoral split reflected the need to have sector samples of sufficient
size to permit statistical analysis at the sector level. Manufacturing was therefore
split into high tech and other manufacturing. In the services sectors it was agreed
to cover distribution and hotels, financial services and business services.
5
The target achieved sample size was 2,500 firms. Table 2.2 shows the intended
structure by size and sector.
Table 2.2 Target Sample by Size and Sector
Employment Size Class
Sector
5-9
1099
100199
200499
500999
1,0002,499
Total
High tech
manufacturing
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Other
manufacturing
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Distribution,
hotels
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Financial
Services
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Business
Services
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Total
500
500
375
375
375
375
2,500
Actual Achieved Sample by Size and Sector
The actual achieved sample is shown in Table 2.3. The percentage unit response
rates are shown in brackets, but a full analysis of these is provided in Appendix
2.
Table 2.3 Respondents by Size and Sector and % Response Rates (in
brackets)
Sector
High tech
manufacturing
Other manufacturing
Distribution, hotels
Financial services
Business services
Total
5-9
44
99
109
86
90
428
(62)
Employment Size Class
100- 200- 50010-99 199
499
999 1000+
78
181
164
145
162
730
(59)
50
99
104
47
98
398
(60)
6
65
112
120
51
107
455
(63)
23
103
58
34
63
281
(56)
15
72
52
22
47
208
(55)
Total
275 (55)
666 (51)
607 (62)
385 (64)
567 (63)
2500 (60)
(60)
There are two principal differences between the target and achieved samples.
The quota targets were underachieved in high tech and financial services and in
the over 499 size bands. They were surpassed in other manufacturing, in
distribution and hotels and in the 10-99 size band.
The pattern of respondents differed from the quota targets for three principal
reasons.
First there was a lack of cases in the D&B sampling frame in some of the target
cells of the sample design. Thus in one case the original target sample size
exceeded the number of companies that Dun and Bradstreet had in their
database (high tech manufacturing size 1,000-2,499 where they have 63 such
records available to use). In other cases the target number was close to the total
number of records that D&B could supply (e.g. in some of the sector specific
1,000-2,499 size categories). An agreed restriction of the sample to England
further reduced the sampling frame cell numbers.
Second, there were discrepancies between the D&B size and sector
classifications and those revealed by the survey process itself. As a result some
respondents had been re-allocated away from their original sampling frame cells.
Finally, there were variations in unit response rates across cells. Whilst the
overall response rate was 60%, it was somewhat higher in services than in
manufacturing. Larger firms also had somewhat lower response rates than
smaller firms.
It was agreed with DfES that, in cases where the D&B cell frequencies and
response rates combined compromised the achievement of quota targets, then
the quotas would be boosted in the size class below within the relevant sector.
The net result of these factors is that the cells with the lowest achieved numbers
of firms are found in the 500 or more employees size range, and in high tech
manufacturing and financial services. These cells were also those with the
smallest number of available firms in the D&B sampling frame.
A detailed discussion of these issues, and the strategy agreed with DfES in
achieving the final sample structure, is contained in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also
includes a detailed discussion of potential biases arising from the unit response
rate patterns.
7
The Survey Instrument
A key purpose of this survey was that the survey instrument should be drawn up
specifically for the purpose of evaluating the relationship between training and
performance. Particular attention was to be paid to the design of questions to
allow training to be characterised in terms of:








Formal vs. informal training
Skills and non-skills related training
Part time vs. full time training
Government provided or subsidised training vs. employer or employee self
funded training
The cost of training
Off-the-job vs. on-the-job training
Transferable vs. firm (or occupation or sector) specific training
Awareness of and participation in government sponsored training
schemes
In developing the survey instrument we drew upon the existing literature surveys
contained in our earlier work for the DfES. We also liaised with the DfES steering
group on the recent experience of the DfES project on Learning and Training at
Work which explored a number of these and related issues.
The performance measures it was agreed to include were employment growth,
turnover growth and profitability.
A deliberately over-inclusive draft survey instrument was created drawn from a
variety of sources. These included previous CBR surveys, the LTW survey and
the Workplace Employment Relations survey. This was then reduced in size
following prioritisation of topics and drafting comments from the DfES and IFF
Research Ltd. The questionnaire was further refined in the light of the outcome of
two pilot surveys. These pilots are discussed further below.
This process produced a final survey instrument that was in two parts: a screener
and a main questionnaire. The screener contained questions confirming the
respondent’s identity and verifying the eligibility of survey inclusion, such as
sector and employment size. The main survey instrument covered questions on
general business characteristics; HR and training expenditure; the workforce and
recruitment; training; business performance and the competitive situation.
The Survey Method
The survey was carried out over the telephone by IFF on behalf of the CBR. All
interviews were conducted by IFF interviewers calling from the IFF offices in
London. The interviewers were personally briefed by the IFF research team. All
8
interviews were conducted using CATI (Computer Aided Telephone
Interviewing).
The initial part of the interview used the Screener sheet, confirming the company
name; establishing the name of the appropriate contact; whether the respondent
was willing to be interviewed and if so confirming employment size, sector,
number of sites and whether the company was independent.
The quota sampling design meant that the interviewers were able to continue
approaching firms in a particular cell until the desired number of interviews had
been conducted or until all firms had been contacted and the sampling frame
exhausted.
There were two alternative approaches to obtaining replies to the main survey
instrument. The first was based wherever possible on conducting the interview
with one respondent all the way through. The second involved switching to a
second respondent if the first was unable to respond to the business
performance questions. In practice almost 75% of the interviews were carried out
with one respondent. Only 639 interviews were undertaken involving a second
respondent. (A further 199 interviews were undertaken where the second
respondent was unavailable or refused to take part in the survey. These cases
were excluded from further analysis.)
The Piloting Process
The pilot process was designed to explore a number of issues. These included:




the effectiveness of the questionnaire in obtaining the data required, e.g. were
respondents able to provide the information and data asked of them, and
what was the quality of the data obtained?
the willingness of participants to take part
the use of data sheets to obtain quantitative performance data
the impact of questionnaire length on responses
Two versions of the questionnaire were used. They were identical except that in
one of the versions a number of questions were excluded from the telephone
instrument and placed instead on to a data sheet for completion in person
separately from the interview. There were 40 completed interviews carried out
using the questionnaire combined with a request to complete a separate data
sheet and 17 using the “without data sheet” questionnaire. Finally a further 30
interviews were conducted without data sheets using a shortened version of the
questionnaire.
There were problems with each approach. Questions asking for financial
specifics now and three years ago were found to be problematic. This sort of
information is not necessarily top of mind and often not in their field, when talking
9
to people in charge of training. It was also found that the interviews were too
lengthy, the average length was well over 30 minutes even after revision, and
there were a large number of “quits” before the interview finished. For the
interviews “with data sheet”, the response from the data sheet was poor. Only 10
out of 33 data sheets were collected and of those only 6 contained usable
information.
It was agreed that a second pilot was required before deciding which survey
method to use. The questionnaire was shortened further, and four alternative
methods were piloted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Telephone survey as before without data sheet (straight through)
Telephone survey, using 2 contacts if necessary (potential transfer)
Telephone survey, but sending a data sheet first (data sheet)
Postal survey
The average interview length of the straight through interviews was 22 minutes,
the potential transfer interview was 24 minutes, whereas the data sheet interview
took 32 minutes with a further 4-5 minutes for the initial stage. One might have
expected the data sheet version to take less time, but it was found that often the
respondent did not have the data sheet at hand or had not filled it in before the
interview. On the whole the revised questionnaire was positively received. Levels
of ‘don’t knows’ and ‘refusals’ to the key financial performance questions were
relatively low compared to the initial pilot. This was largely due to the refined
question design. The data sheet version was the least successful. A relatively
high proportion of those stating they were willing to receive the data sheet then
refused to be interviewed. The response rates for the telephone interviews
without data sheet, and the potential transfers were on the whole better than for
the postal survey. For the financial performance questions (turnover and pre-tax
profit), however, as Table 2.4 shows the postal survey fared better. These results
and the speed and timeliness of the telephone method led to the decision to go
ahead with the telephone survey without a data sheet but with the option of
potential transfer.
Table 2.4 % Response Rates – Financial Data
Question
Turnover
Exports
Pre-tax profits
(losses)
Postal
88.2
Straight through
81.8
Including transfers
83.3
76.5
81.8
100.0
76.5
63.6
58.3
The outcome was far less satisfactory than the pilot and the full telephone survey
did not achieve the above response rates. The consequential action is discussed
below.
10
Further Data Additions after the Completion of the Full Survey
After the completion of the full survey it became apparent that the response to
the performance questions was disappointing (see Appendix 3). The pre-tax
profit question had 54.3% don’t knows or refusing to answer, turnover had 26.5%
missing and exports had 17.5% missing. As 80% of our sample firms were
companies it was agreed with DfES to supplement the survey data with
accounting data lodged with Companies House and available through the FAME
database. This reduced the missing data to 30% for pre-tax profit and 21% for
turnover. At the same time we retrieved additional performance data from FAME
for earlier years. These questions had been removed from the survey instrument
after the initial pilot as they had proved to be too difficult for respondents to recall
in the context of a telephone interview.
11
Chapter 3
Sample Characteristics
In this section we examine the characteristics of our sample. We pay particular
attention to the impact of size and sector on these characteristics emphasising
the full range of measures of training activity available.
Extent and Intensity of Training
Table 3.1 shows that when firms are asked whether they do on- or off- the job
training we find that 79% of firms answered yes to these questions (and 92% did
either on- or off-the-job training or both). It can also be seen that firms which
have above 100 employees do not differ much in the proportion which train, but
small firms have a much lower training propensity. The expenditure on training
per employee does not differ that much across size classes and does not
increase monotonically with size. The proportion of firms spending more than
£100 per employee on training is about 60% and we term this group of firms the
high intensity trainers.
Table 3.1 Training Measures by Size Class
Analysis Size
% with off- % with onTraining % with training
Training spend
classes
the-job
the-job
spend per per employee
£
(employees)
training
training?
employee
> £100
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
38%
57%
2,231
347.8
50%
N
427
427
382
382
382
(2) 10 - 99 Mean
74%
76%
14,317
488.9
64%
N
726
726
553
553
553
(3) 100 - 199 Mean
91%
86%
85,027
614.9
62%
N
394
391
252
252
252
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
95%
88%
159,812
495.6
65%
N
450
448
275
275
275
(5) 500-999 Mean
96%
86%
367,116
567.3
65%
N
281
280
168
168
168
(6) > 1000 Mean
97%
88%
667,746
495.3
69%
N
206
206
118
118
118
Mean
79%
79%
122,777
485.2
61%
Total
N
2484
2478
1748
1748
1748
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;1v2,3,4,5,6; 2v3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6 1v2,3,4,5,6
Significant at 5%
2v3,4,5,6 2v3,4,5,6 3v4,5,6; 4v5,6
level
12
The incidence of training across sectors does not differ much, but financial and
business services spend more per employee (see Table 3.2). The distribution
and hotels sector comes lowest in terms of each measure.
Table 3.2 Training Measures by Sector
% with off- % with onthe-job
the-job
Sector
training
training?
(1)Hi tech
Mean
79%
81%
275
275
manufactng N
(2)Other
Mean
78%
79%
665
662
manufactng N
(3) Distribution, Mean
72%
78%
N
599
598
Hotels
(4)Financial
Mean
78%
78%
N
385
383
Services
(5)Business
Mean
86%
79%
N
560
560
Services
Mean
79%
79%
Total
N
2484
2478
1v3,5;
Significant at 5% level
2v3,5;
3v4,5; 4v5
13
Training
spend £
130,885
196
110,843
497
66,814
419
138,751
257
185,271
379
122,777
1748
2v3; 3v5
Training % with training
spend per per employee
employee
> £100
467.4
66%
196
196
275.1
56%
497
497
304.5
51%
419
419
703.1
72%
257
257
822.1
71%
379
379
485.2
61%
1748
1748
1v3; 2v4,5; 1v2,3; 2v4,5;
3v4,5
3v4,5
Business Planning and Training
Next, we examine a number of measures that reflect the extent of planning.
Table 3.3 shows that business planning is related to size, but the marked
increase in its incidence occurs when moving from micro to small and from small
to medium. Beyond the firm size of 100 employees there is relatively less
increase in planning activity as we consider larger firms.
Table 3.3 Business and Training Planning by Size Class
% with a
% with a
% with a % with a budget
Analysis Size classes business
human
written
for training
(employees)
plan
resources plan training plan expenditure
(1)5 – 9
Mean
53%
18%
27%
18%
N
417
419
427
424
(2)10 – 99 Mean
78%
38%
49%
46%
N
716
712
725
718
(3)100 – 199 Mean
90%
62%
67%
76%
N
382
392
395
395
(4)200 – 499 Mean
96%
70%
71%
82%
N
443
447
452
451
(5)500-999 Mean
96%
78%
79%
90%
N
273
274
280
280
(6)>1000
Mean
99%
81%
80%
92%
N
202
204
206
203
Mean
82%
52%
58%
61%
Total
N
2433
2448
2485
2471
1v2,3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;
Significant at 5% level 2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6 3v4,5,6; 4v,5,6 3v5,6; 4v5,6 3v4,5,6; 4v5,6
Planning is more prevalent amongst business service firms and least within
distribution and hotels (Table 3.4). There is little difference between hi-tech and
conventional manufacturing.
14
Table 3.4 Business and Training Planning by Sector
Sector
(1)Hi tech
manufacturing
(2)Other
manufacturing
(3 Distribution,
Hotels
(4)Financial
Services
(5)Business
Services
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Significant at 5% level
% with a
% with a
% with a % with a budget
business
human
written
for training
plan resources plan training plan expenditure
85%
50%
57%
62%
268
270
272
272
81%
53%
57%
61%
651
657
663
659
77%
47%
57%
56%
593
597
603
600
84%
49%
55%
61%
369
373
382
381
88%
60%
63%
67%
552
551
565
559
82%
52%
58%
61%
2433
2448
2485
2471
3v1,2,4,5;
5v1,2,3,4
5v2,3,4
2v3; 5v2,3,4
2v5
We now consider the provision of training resources within the firm. Table 3.5
shows that the % of firms with provision of an employee relations director, or a
senior manager, for training increases with firm size. The size of the firm clearly
has an even more dominant effect on the provision of training facilities and staff.
15
Table 3.5 Training Staff and Facilities by Size Classes
% with
% with staff to
director for % with senior
% with a
design and
Analysis Size classes employee manager for separate training teach training
(employees)
relations
training
facility
courses
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
49%
49%
2%
5%
N
423
427
427
427
(2) 10 - 99 Mean
56%
65%
8%
16%
N
721
731
730
729
(3) 100 - 199 Mean
50%
74%
22%
38%
N
388
397
398
397
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
59%
78%
32%
53%
N
444
455
455
452
(5) 500-999 Mean
65%
79%
41%
63%
N
272
281
281
281
(6) > 1000 Mean
71%
87%
50%
79%
N
196
208
208
208
Mean
57%
69%
21%
35%
Total
N
2444
2499
2499
2494
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
Significant at 5% level 2v3,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6; 4v5,6; 3v4,5,6; 4v5,6;
3v4,5,6; 4v6 3v6; 4v6
5v6
5v6
Table 3.6 shows that there is very little variation across the sectors in the
provision of training facilities and staff. It would appear that such facilities depend
upon the size of the firm, but not the sector in which it operates.
16
Table 3.6 Training Staff and Facilities by Sector
% with
% with staff to
director for % with senior
% with a
design and
employee manager for
separate
teach training
Sector
relations
training
training facility
courses
(1) Hi tech
Mean
55%
67%
20%
32%
266
275
275
275
manufacturing N
(2) Other
Mean
55%
69%
23%
34%
658
666
665
665
manufacturing N
(3) Distribution,
Mean
55%
68%
20%
33%
N
595
606
607
606
Hotels
(4) Financial
Mean
58%
70%
19%
33%
N
371
385
385
383
Services
(5) Business
Mean
60%
73%
21%
41%
N
554
567
567
565
Services
Mean
57%
69%
21%
35%
Total
N
2444
2499
2499
2494
Significant at 5% level
5v1,2,3,4
Labour Management Techniques
We now turn to examine the prevalence of use of a number of labour
management techniques. These both reinforce and support other training
activities, but also indicate management’s sophistication and attitude towards
human resource development. In general we find the use of particular labour
management techniques to be size related. Only 8% of firms in the 5-9
employees size group have adopted Investors in People (IiP), but this rises to
over 50% of the firms in the largest size group. IiP is intimately associated with
both the development of effective training programmes and appropriate methods
of planning and recording this activity. This finding supports the earlier tables that
showed greater training intensity and a higher level of planning and
administration among the larger firms. Similar findings can be seen for the other
measures of human resource management shown in Table 3.7. In each case the
proportion of firms using such techniques rises with firm size, but at a declining
rate.
17
Table 3.7 Labour Management Processes by Size Class
% using total % using % using job % using
% using
Analysis Size classes
quality
quality rotation/multi performance Investors in
(employees)
management circles
-skilling
related pay
People
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
18%
12%
44%
29%
8%
N
421
421
427
427
424
(2) 10 - 99
Mean
31%
17%
53%
48%
19%
N
712
704
727
722
723
(3) 100 - 199 Mean
42%
23%
63%
49%
34%
N
379
380
396
398
394
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
48%
28%
70%
55%
40%
N
432
426
451
453
448
(5) 500-999
Mean
51%
33%
73%
56%
44%
N
265
269
277
279
279
(6) > 1000
Mean
49%
26%
73%
66%
52%
N
197
191
204
207
206
Mean
37%
22%
60%
49%
29%
Total
N
2406
2391
2482
2486
2474
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
Significant at 5% level 2v3,4,5,6; 2v3,4,5,6; 2v3,4,5,6; 2v4,5,6; 3v6;
3v,4,5,6;
3v5
3v5
3v4,5,6
4v6; 5v6
4v6; 5v6
It is to be expected that some of these techniques are more appropriate to
certain sectors than to others. Thus, Table 3.8 shows that manufacturing firms,
particularly hi tech, are more likely to use TQM, quality circles and job rotation.
On the other hand these techniques are used in each sector to some degree and
PRP is more commonly used by service sector firms.
18
Table 3.8 Labour Management Processes by Sector
% using total % using % using job
% using
% using
quality
quality rotation/multi- performance Investors
Sector
management circles
skilling
related pay in People
(1)Hi tech
Mean
56%
30%
71%
42%
31%
269
266
274
275
270
manufacturing N
(2)Other
Mean
48%
27%
69%
38%
28%
645
645
660
662
659
manufacturing N
(3)Distribution, Mean
29%
18%
54%
50%
28%
N
586
584
607
605
605
Hotels
(4)Financial
Mean
21%
13%
55%
63%
25%
N
367
363
382
380
377
Services
(5)Business
Mean
35%
20%
53%
53%
33%
N
539
533
559
564
563
Services
Mean
37%
22%
60%
49%
29%
Total
N
2406
2391
2482
2486
2474
1v2,3,4,5;
1v3,4,5;
1v3,4,5;
1v3,4,5;
Significant at 5% level
2v3,4,5;
2v3,4,5;
2v3,4,5; 3v4;
4v5
2v3,4,5
3v4,5; 4v5;
4v5
4v5
Independent and Non-Independent Firms: Training and Human Resource
Management
We showed earlier that about one-quarter of our sample are not independent, but
part of a larger group. We also showed that they were more likely to be found
amongst the larger size groups. In order to see whether those firms which are
part of a larger group are more likely to engage in training support we need to
allow for this size effect.
Table 3.9 divides the sample both between larger or smaller than 100 employees
and by whether the firm is independent of a larger group. We can see that even
within size groups, firms which are not independent (but part of a larger group)
are significantly more likely to plan, spend on training and use more sophisticated
labour management techniques.
19
Table 3.9 Training Measures by Independence of the firm and Size Class
Is the firm
independent?
All Firms Independent Mean
N
Not indepdnt. Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
5-99
Independent Mean
N
empl
Not indepdnt. Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
100+
Independent Mean
N
empl
Not indepdnt. Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
% with a
human
%
resources engaged
plan
in IiP
45%
1812
71%
631
52%
2443
28%
997
48%
133
31%
1130
67%
815
78%
498
71%
1313
25%
1828
39%
641
29%
2469
14%
1010
20%
136
15%
1146
39%
818
44%
505
41%
1323
% with
% using total training per
quality
employee
management >£100
32%
1785
52%
616
37%
2401
24%
1001
41%
131
26%
1132
43%
784
54%
485
47%
1269
57%
1354
76%
391
61%
1745
57%
847
71%
87
58%
934
57%
507
78%
304
65%
811
Figures in bold denotes a significant difference at 5% level between independent and nonindependent firms for all firms and within size groups. Those not in bold were significant at the
10% level.
We shall return to look at further information about training in the next chapter,
but first we examine other firm factors which might influence the level of training
and its relationship with business performance.
Labour Costs
We first examine the significance of labour costs to the firm. We might expect
that when labour costs represent a high proportion of turnover there will be a
greater incentive to emphasise the importance of training to the firm. When
labour cost is measured as a percentage of turnover we find, in Table 3.10, little
relation between this ratio and firm size.
20
Table 3.10 Firm Labour Costs as a % of Turnover - % distribution within size
classes
Size classes
10% <
(employees)
<10%
20%
(1) 5 - 9
13%
25%
(2) 10 - 99
10%
20%
(3) 100 - 199
13%
27%
(4) 200 - 499
15%
27%
(5) 500-999
13%
22%
(6) > 1000
11%
23%
Total
12%
24%
Significant at 5% level 1v2; 2v3,4,5
20% <
30%
24%
25%
27%
28%
32%
33%
27%
30% <
40%
19%
21%
16%
14%
16%
13%
17%
>40%
19%
24%
16%
16%
17%
20%
20%
N
343
554
291
318
214
144
1864
Table 3.11 shows that labour costs typically represent about one quarter of
turnover, but this ratio is highest in business and financial services.
Table 3.11 Firm Labour Costs as a % of Turnover - % distribution within
sector
Sector
(1) Hi tech
manufacturing
(2) Other
manufacturing
(3) Distribution,
hotels
(4) Financial
services
(5) Business
services
<10%
10% <
20%
20% <
30%
30% <
40%
>40%
N
13%
28%
34%
16%
9%
223
9%
26%
31%
19%
14%
510
19%
32%
29%
13%
8%
440
15%
14%
22%
15%
34%
275
7%
16%
20%
22%
35%
416
Total
13%
24%
27%
17%
19%
1864
All groups have significantly different distributions from each other at the 5% level
Competitive Situation and Innovative Activity
The attitude of firms to training and its consequence for performance will
necessarily depend on their competitive situation. Tables 3.12 and 3.13 examine
this important determinant of performance. We can see that the largest customer
represents over 25% of sales for about one quarter of the firms and that the top
five customers account for over 50% of sales for about one third of the sample
firms. Interestingly, there is little consistent variation across the size categories in
this customer dependence. This remains the case even when we consider the
size categories within the sectors. The median number of firms regarded as
serious competitors is five and this also shows little variation across the sectors.
21
The final measure in this section measures innovation by the proportion of sales
represented by new products. This shows an inconsistent pattern across the size
groups, but within sectors it tends to be higher (but only at 10% level) in the
smaller size groups in other manufacturing and the opposite within services.
Table 3.12 The relationship between firm size and competitiveness and firm size %
distribution of firms, median number, or % of sales
More than 25% More than 50%
Number of
of sales to
of sales to top 5
serious
% of sales due
largest customer customers
competitors to new products
(1) 5 - 9
25%
31%
4
12.6%
N
379
367
367
347
(2)10 - 99
26%
31%
5
12.7%
N
617
615
619
562
(3)100 - 199
24%
27%
5
14.5%
N
326
325
348
286
(4) 200 - 499
23%
30%
5
14.9%
N
358
338
394
325
(5) 500-999
27%
36%
4
12.6%
N
222
214
237
205
(6) > 1000
23%
31%
5
15.2%
N
167
159
180
150
25%
31%
5
13.5%
Total
N
2069
2018
2145
1875
In contrast, these measures show marked differences across the sectors. Hi tech
has the greatest dependence on a few customers, revealing again the
importance of this sector’s linkages with larger businesses. As we might expect,
financial services and distribution etc have the broadest customer base. The
median number of serious competitors shows little variation across sectors. Our
measure of innovativeness reveals the hi tech sector as highest and the service
sectors as lowest.
22
Table 3.13 The relationship between firm size and competitiveness and sector %
distribution of firms, median number, or % of sales
More than
25% of sales More than 50% Number of
% of sales
to largest
of sales to top
serious
due to new
Sector
customer
5 customers
competitors
products
(1)Hi tech
43%
49%
5
18.0%
manufacturing N
243
232
241
197
(2)Other
31%
44%
4
14.9%
Manufacturing N
587
575
592
520
(3)Distribution,
14%
15%
4
12.4%
N
Hotels
487
470
530
443
(4)Financial
9%
9%
6
11.2%
N
Services
299
296
304
295
(5)Business
29%
34%
5
12.6%
N
Services
453
445
478
420
25%
31%
5
13.5%
Total
N
2069
2018
2145
1875
1v3,4,5;
1v3,4,5; 2v3,5;
Significant at 5% level
2v3,4,5;
4v1,2,3,4; 2v5 1v3,4,5; 2v4
3v4,5
3v5; 4v5
Growth Ambitions
It is likely that the amount of training a firm is undertaking is related to its
ambitions for future growth and so we also asked firms about their growth
ambitions. Most firms are seeking to grow moderately over the next five years.
Table 3.14 shows that the smallest firms are the least ambitious and the largest
firms in the sample have the most ambitious plans and these differences are
generally statistically significant. However, there is sufficient variation between
firms within size groups to enable us to distinguish on a multivariate basis the
effect of growth ambitions on training separate from the size effect.
23
Table 3.14 Firm Growth Objectives - % distribution within size classes
Growth objectives over the next 5 years:
Size classes
Grow
Grow
Stay same
(employees) substantially moderately
size
(1) 5 - 9
16%
58%
22%
(2) 10 - 99
29%
56%
12%
(3) 100 - 199
33%
57%
9%
(4) 200 - 499
38%
51%
8%
(5) 500-999
34%
48%
11%
(6) > 1000
42%
47%
8%
Total
31%
54%
12%
Significant at 5% level 1v2,3,4,5,6; 2v3,4,6; 4v5; 5v6
Become
smaller
4%
3%
1%
3%
6%
3%
3%
N
412
701
388
439
273
199
2412
We also find significant differences in growth ambitions across the sectors (see
Table 3.15). Business services exhibit the highest growth ambitions, whilst
distribution and hotels have the lowest proportion of firms which seek to grow
substantially.
Table 3.15 Firm Growth Objectives - % distribution within sector
Sector
(1) Hi tech
manufacturing
(2) Other
manufacturing
(3) Distribution,
hotels
(4) Financial
services
(5) Business
services
Total
Growth objectives over the next 5 years:
Grow
Grow
Stay same Become
substantially moderately
size
smaller
N
34%
55%
9%
1%
269
24%
55%
17%
5%
649
24%
59%
12%
4%
579
36%
51%
9%
4%
370
40%
49%
10%
1%
545
31%
54%
12%
3%
2412
Significant at 5% level 1v2,3; 2v4,5; 3v4,5
Skill Categories and Recruitment Difficulties
Finally, before turning to examine training provision in greater depth, we report
on the skill categories in which firms are experiencing recruitment difficulties.
Larger firms have greater recruitment problems than smaller firms (but this
difference is significant only for the managers and professional job groups). This
may reflect that they are seeking to recruit a wider variety of employees owing to
their greater size, but the percentages shown in Table 3.16 are calculated only
24
for those who employ the particular type of employee – so this is unlikely to be
the explanation. Recruitment problems are greatest for professionals, technical
and scientific staff and craft and skilled operatives.
25
Table 3.16 Recruitment Problems by Size Class
% experiencing recruiting difficulties in the following occupations:
Analysis Size classes
(employees)
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
N
(2)10 - 99
Mean
N
(3)100 - 199 Mean
N
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
N
(5) 500-999 Mean
N
(6) > 1000 Mean
N
Mean
Total
N
Significant at 5% level
All
Managers and
senior
administrative
Professional
36%
425
59%
731
69%
396
68%
454
66%
277
73%
201
60%
2484
8%
247
18%
637
24%
390
24%
447
26%
275
36%
199
22%
2195
18%
145
28%
479
33%
355
37%
411
39%
259
46%
196
33%
1845
Technical
Personal
and
Clerical & Craft and Skill service and Operatives
scientific Secretarial operative
Sales
and assembly Other manual
20%
75
33%
356
36%
316
34%
398
35%
254
39%
183
34%
1582
1v2,3,4,
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;
5,6,2v3,
2v4,5,6; 3v6;
2v3,4,5,6; 6v3,4,5
4,5,6
4v6
26
15%
279
18%
657
18%
389
14%
446
13%
274
18%
199
16%
2244
41%
117
40%
293
38%
227
36%
261
35%
193
40%
138
38%
1229
21%
130
30%
399
29%
283
29%
364
26%
231
28%
175
28%
1582
32%
71
29%
264
26%
203
24%
251
20%
184
25%
126
26%
1099
22%
93
19%
323
21%
230
19%
268
10%
175
20%
122
18%
1211
In general, high tech manufacturing firms have the greatest recruitment
difficulties and financial service firms have the lowest problems, but there are
strong differences across the various categories of employment. Table 3.17
shows that, high tech manufacturing has its greatest difficulties amongst
technical and scientific staff whilst conventional manufacturing faces its most
significant problems with craft and skilled operatives. The financial services
sector has greatest recruitment problems amongst clerical and secretarial staff,
but it is manual staff for hotels and professional staff for business services where
the greatest problems lie.
27
Table 3.17 Recruitment Problems by Sector
% experiencing recruiting difficulties in the following occupations:
Managers and
Technical
Craft and Personal Operatives
senior
and
Clerical &
Skill
service and
and
Other
Sector
All
administrative Professional scientific Secretarial operative
Sales
assembly manual
(1) Hi tech
Mean
67%
22%
45%
45%
9%
36%
22%
26%
14%
273
245
224
215
245
209
181
208
152
manufacturing N
(2) Other
Mean
64%
22%
33%
33%
11%
43%
20%
28%
14%
662
586
488
448
603
549
453
515
364
manufacturing N
(3) Distribution,Mean
60%
22%
18%
22%
18%
38%
36%
23%
30%
N
602
519
381
302
502
294
449
248
386
Hotels
(4) Financial Mean
51%
22%
30%
37%
27%
16%
32%
14%
11%
382
344
284
211
364
31
210
21
101
Services N
(5) Business Mean
60%
21%
43%
38%
17%
27%
28%
23%
11%
565
501
468
406
530
146
289
107
208
Services N
Total
Mean
60%
22%
33%
34%
16%
38%
28%
26%
18%
N
2484
2195
1845
1582
2244
1229
1582
1099
1211
1v3,4,5;
1v2,3,4;
1v3,4,5;
1v4;
1v3,4;
1v2,3; 2v3;
Significant at 5% level 2v4; 3v4;
2v3,5; 3v4,5;
2v3,4,5;
2v4,5;
2v3,4,5;
3v1,2,4,5
3v4,5
4v5
4v5
3v4; 4v5
3v4,5
3v5
29
Chapter 4
Training Activity
This chapter follows our description of the key characteristics of the sample and
their relation to firm size and sector by providing more detailed information about
the firms’ training activities.
On- and Off-the-job Training by Size and Occupational Group
We begin by examining for whom training is provided cross-tabulated with our
size groupings. This is shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Table 4.1 covers off-the-job
training and the other provides the equivalent information for on-the-job training
provision. The first column of Table 4.2 reminds us of the proportion of firms in
each size class which provided some form of off-the-job training. It shows the
much lower level of provision in firms with less than 100 employees, particularly
those with fewer than 10 employees. The remaining columns show the
percentage of firms which did provide some form of off-the-job training who
provided it for each of the employee groups shown. Therefore we find that, of the
79% of firms which did provide some off-the-job training, 83% provided such
training for technical and scientific employees whilst only 44% provided it for
manual employees. The differences across the size groups do not reflect the fact
that smaller firms employ a narrower range of employees because the
percentages shown are calculated only for those firms which do employ that type
of employee. The categories of skilled operators and sales and personal service
staff show the narrowest spread across the size groups. The starkest contrast is
the relatively low proportion of small firms providing off-the-job training for
managers and senior administrators.
30
Table 4.1 Off-the-job Training in Last 12 months by Size Class and Employee Group - % of firms engaged in training who
trained this group
% training
% training
% training
% training
% training
personal
% funded or managers and % training
tech. and
clerical & craft and skill service and
arranged
senior
professional scientific
secretarial
operative
sales
training
administrators occupations occupations occupations occupations occupations
Size classes
(employees)
N
38%
427
56%
110
67%
83
60%
42
48%
120
74%
39
60%
52
30%
20
31%
32
N
74%
726
72%
477
67%
368
76%
294
61%
498
62%
223
58%
302
48%
191
29%
237
N
91%
394
79%
356
76%
324
82%
289
69%
352
67%
211
68%
255
60%
182
44%
206
N
95%
450
90%
417
84%
385
87%
372
80%
414
79%
247
79%
341
66%
235
48%
248
N
96%
281
93%
266
86%
254
86%
252
83%
267
78%
184
84%
225
69%
186
50%
172
N
97%
206
96%
198
91%
193
88%
184
85%
197
82%
140
81%
171
68%
125
64%
124
N
79%
2484
82%
1824
79%
1607
83%
1433
72%
1848
73%
1044
73%
1346
61%
939
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6
1v4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6
2v4,5,6;
3v4,5,6
(1) 5-9
(2) 10-99
(3) 100-199
(4) 200-499
(5) 500-999
(6) >1000
Total
Significant at
5% level
% training
operatives % training
and
other
assembly
manual
occupations occupations
31
44%
1019
1v5,6;
1v4,5,6;
1v3,4,5,6; 2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6 3v6; 4v6;
3v4,5,6
5v6
The findings for on-the-job training are very similar to those described above.
Table 4.2 On-the-job Training in Last 12 months by Size Class and Employee Group - % of firms engaged in training who
trained this group
% funded
% training % training
% training
or
% training
% training % training
craft and
personal
operatives % training
arranged managers and % training technical and clerical &
skill
service and
and
other
any
senior
professional scientific
secretarial operative
sales
assembly
manual
training administrators occupations occupations occupations occupations occupations occupations occupations
Size classes
(employees)
N
57%
427
45%
148
67%
83
65%
49
62%
161
79%
61
69%
84
64%
33
56%
54
N
76%
726
59%
488
60%
376
70%
297
73%
501
70%
224
69%
323
73%
207
47%
253
N
86%
391
68%
331
68%
302
77%
265
80%
329
78%
197
80%
242
84%
172
64%
196
N
88%
448
69%
390
69%
362
78%
348
82%
387
80%
233
76%
316
85%
221
66%
236
N
86%
280
70%
236
72%
230
76%
226
79%
239
77%
171
75%
201
87%
170
66%
153
88%
206
79%
2478
70%
178
64%
1771
72%
177
67%
1530
81%
165
76%
1350
82%
180
77%
1797
83%
124
77%
1010
83%
160
75%
1326
84%
119
82%
922
74%
111
61%
1003
2v3,4,5,6
1v6;2v4,6
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,6
1v3,6;
2v3,4,6
1v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6
1v6;
2v3,4,5,6
(1) 5-9
(2) 10-99
(3) 100-199
(4) 200-499
(5) 500-999
(6) >1000
N
Total
N
Significant at
5% level
1v2,3,4,5,
1v2,3,4,5,6;
6; 2v3,
2v3,4,5,6
4,5,6
32
Areas of Training for Non-Managers
We now turn from whether training is provided, to the areas in which training has
been provided for non-management employees. We do this by examining how
the area varies across the size groupings. Table 4.3 shows the proportion of
firms providing training in a particular area as a percentage of those which
provided off-the-job training in any of the areas. The bottom row gives the
summary picture for all firms. There are significant differences across the size
groups. We can see that computing skills, health and safety, new equipment and
induction are the most commonly used types of training. The very low proportions
of very small firms providing training in the areas of supervisory, induction and
teamworking probably reflect a lower need for this form of training amongst these
small firms. Training is not commonly provided to non-managers in areas such as
stress management and equal opportunities.
33
Table 4.3 Off-the-job Training for Non-Managers in Last 12 Months by Size Classes
% Given % Given
Training in
Team
Computing working
Skills
Training
Size classes
(employees)
% Given
% Trained in
% Given
% Given
% Trained in
Training in
Customer % Trained
Induction Supervisory
Improving
Operation of
Service/
in Health
Training
Training Communication New Equipment
liaison
and Safety
(1) 5-9
Mean
N
62%
138
26%
135
22%
138
14%
138
33%
138
53%
138
35%
138
50%
138
(2) 10-99
Mean
N
66%
496
32%
492
39%
495
28%
492
41%
495
60%
495
36%
493
58%
493
(3) 100-199 Mean
N
77%
350
48%
348
54%
350
45%
350
49%
349
60%
350
51%
348
75%
350
(4) 200-499 Mean
N
81%
409
56%
408
66%
410
57%
409
62%
406
69%
408
56%
409
77%
409
(5) 500-999 Mean
N
88%
264
64%
264
73%
264
65%
262
65%
263
69%
263
57%
260
86%
264
(6) >1000
Mean
N
89%
195
65%
193
77%
195
64%
193
74%
194
76%
192
71%
194
86%
194
Total
Mean
N
Significant at 5%
level
77%
48%
56%
46%
1852
1840
1852
1844
1v3,4,5,6; 1v3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6; 2v3,4,5,6; 2v3, 4, 5, 6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v5, 6;
3v4,5,6; 3v4, 5, 6;
3v4,5,6; 4v5
4v5, 6
4v5,6
4v6
34
53%
64%
50%
72%
1845
1846
1842
1848
1v3,4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
1v4,5,6; 2v4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6; 4v6;
3v4,5,6
3v5,6;
3v6; 4v6; 5v6
5v6
4v5,6
Table 4.3 (continued) Off-the-job Training for Non-Managers in Last 12 Months by Size
Classes
% Trained in
% Given
% Trained
ProblemTraining on % Trained in in Quality % Trained in
Size classes
solving
Equal
Time
Control
Stress
(employees)
Methods Opportunities Management Procedures Management
(1) 5-9
Mean
34%
18%
18%
36%
9%
N
137
137
137
137
138
(2) 10-99
Mean
24%
14%
27%
40%
7%
N
494
494
495
494
492
(3) 100-199 Mean
30%
19%
35%
43%
10%
N
346
349
347
346
346
(4) 200-499 Mean
40%
25%
43%
47%
18%
N
404
408
410
408
410
(5) 500-999 Mean
49%
27%
45%
57%
21%
N
259
256
261
260
263
(6) >1000
Mean
42%
40%
56%
57%
20%
N
189
190
193
189
191
Total
Mean
35%
22%
37%
46%
13%
N
1829
1834
1843
1834
1840
1v5,6;
1v3,4,5,6;
1v4,5,6;
1v4,5,6;
1v2,5; 2v4,5,6; 2v4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
2v4,5,6;
Significant at 5% level
2v4,5,6;
3v4,5,6; 4v5 3v4,5,6; 4v6; 3v4,5,6; 4v6;
3v5,6;
3v4,5,6
5v6
5v6
4v5,6
Areas of Training for Managers
Table 4.4 reports on the areas in which off-the-job training is provided for
managers and how this differs across size categories. It is reported in terms of
those providing this sort of training as a percentage of those providing any form
of training.
If we look first at the bottom row that shows the finding for all firms which
provided off-the-job training for managers, we can see that teamworking,
supervisory, communications and health and safety are the most commonly
provided training areas – all are used by above 70% of our trainers. The least
common are innovation management, production management and stress
management.
Turning now to the size groupings, we observe much lower provision amongst
smaller firms and this implies that they provide managers with training in fewer
areas (as well as fewer managers being offered training). This is in part due to a
lower need for induction, teamworking, production management and supervisory
training with small workforces and less complex processes. This can be seen in
the much lower proportions of smaller firms providing training in personnel
35
management, teamworking, induction, supervision and innovation management.
There is also a suggestion that smaller firms are proportionately less likely to
engage in training of managers in areas that are not directly related to immediate
business needs. This is evidenced by the lower proportions of smaller firms
providing training in time management, stress management, improving
communication and in health and safety.
36
Table 4.4 Off-the-job Training for Managers in Last 12 Months by Sector and Training Area
Size classes
(employees)
% Given
Teamworking
Training
% Given
Induction
Training
% Given
% Trained in
% Trained in
% Trained in % Trained in % Trained in
Supervisory
Improving
Innovation
Customer
Marketing
Health and
Training
Communication Management Skills Service/liaison
Skills
Safety
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
N
41%
61
27%
62
40%
62
48%
62
25%
61
47%
62
35%
62
47%
62
(2)10 - 99
Mean
N
53%
338
44%
343
56%
342
60%
341
34%
338
44%
343
38%
343
65%
342
(3)100 - 199
Mean
N
68%
276
48%
277
72%
277
72%
278
37%
271
51%
278
37%
277
73%
278
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
N
75%
370
58%
372
81%
372
76%
369
40%
362
57%
369
43%
367
78%
369
(5) 500-999
Mean
N
83%
243
66%
247
82%
246
79%
244
41%
239
58%
245
46%
242
84%
246
(6) > 1000
Mean
N
84%
187
73%
187
85%
189
86%
188
52%
184
67%
184
47%
184
86%
187
Total
Mean
N
70%
1475
55%
1488
73%
1488
72%
1482
39%
1455
54%
1481
41%
1475
75%
1484
1v3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
Significant at 5% level 2v3,4,5,6;
3v4,5,6;
3v4,5,6; 4v5,6
3v4,5,6
4v5,6
1v2,3,4,5,6;
1v4,5,6; 2v6; 3v6; 1v6; 2v4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6; 3v6;
4v6; 5v6
3v6; 4v6
4v6
37
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v5,6; 4v6
Table 4.4 (continued) Off-the-job Training for Managers in Last 12 Months by Sector and Training Area
% Trained in % Trained in % Trained in % Trained in % Trained in % Trained in % Given Other
Financial
Personnel Production
Time
Quality Control
Stress
Management
Management Management Management Management Procedures Management
Training
Size classes
(employees)
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
N
31%
62
26%
62
10%
62
35%
62
37%
60
15%
62
35%
62
(2)10 - 99
Mean
N
39%
342
35%
341
23%
340
41%
342
47%
342
16%
341
45%
343
(3)100 - 199 Mean
N
44%
276
43%
278
26%
276
49%
279
46%
277
20%
276
51%
274
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
N
52%
363
53%
371
32%
364
56%
369
49%
368
25%
371
61%
370
(5) 500-999 Mean
N
56%
237
56%
244
37%
243
61%
244
55%
240
31%
244
56%
244
(6) > 1000
Mean
N
68%
182
63%
186
38%
184
67%
187
58%
182
30%
184
66%
183
Total
Mean
N
53%
1483
50%
1469
23%
1478
54%
1476
1v4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6;
3v5,6; 4v6
1v5,6; 2v6;
3v5,6
1v5,6;
2v4,5,6;
3v5,6
1v3,4,5,6;
2v4,5,6; 3v4,6;
5v6
Significant at
5% level
49%
48%
29%
1462
1482
1469
1v4,5,6;
1v3,4,5,6; 1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v4,5,6;
2v4,5,6;
3v4,5,6; 4v6; 2v3,4,5,6;
3v5,6
3v4,5,6; 4v6
5v6
38
The Number of Training Days: Managers and Non-Managers
The number of training days provided to those who received training yielded a wide
range of answers with the mean for management of 6.8 days for off-the-job and 15.7
days for on-the-job; and similar figures for other employees at 7.2 and 19.7 days
respectively. The medians are quite different and show far less variation. The median
number of days of off-the-job training provided to management in the last year was five
for the smallest size groups and four for the others, whilst off-the-job management
training ranged from seven days for the smallest to five days for the largest size group.
The number of days of training of other employees showed a very similar pattern and
level with the medians ranging from five days to three days for off-the-job and from
seven days to 4 days for on-the-job across the size groups.
The firms were also asked about their training activity three years earlier. The
responses are summarised in Tables 4.5–4.8. Put simply, the change is not dramatic
since a high proportion indicates that training activity now is about the same as three
years earlier. On the other hand, the proportion indicating some increase is very much
higher than the proportion indicating a decline in activity.
Table 4.5 Days Spent on Training Non-Management off-the-job now compared to 3
years ago - % distribution within size classes
Size classes A lot lower
Slightly
About the
Slightly
A lot higher
(employees)
now
lower now same now higher now
now
N
(1) 5-9
8%
8%
51%
20%
14%
65
(2) 10-99
5%
7%
45%
25%
18%
291
(3) 100-199
4%
9%
39%
31%
18%
231
(4) 200-499
4%
6%
38%
28%
23%
281
(5) 500-999
5%
4%
29%
32%
30%
174
(6) >1000
3%
7%
31%
36%
23%
151
Total
5%
7%
38%
29%
21%
1193
Significant at 5% level 1v4,5,6; 2v4,5,6; 3v5; 4v5
Table 4.6 Days Spent on Training Management off-the-job now compared to 3 years
ago - % distribution within size classes
Size classes A lot lower
Slightly
About the
Slightly
A lot higher
(employees)
now
lower now same now higher now
now
N
(1) 5-9
16%
10%
23%
35%
16%
31
(2) 10-99
4%
8%
40%
25%
22%
180
(3) 100-199
4%
12%
36%
30%
18%
170
(4) 200-499
4%
8%
40%
28%
20%
246
(5) 500-999
4%
6%
32%
29%
29%
161
(6) >1000
4%
9%
32%
33%
24%
136
Total
4%
9%
36%
29%
22%
924
39
Staff Engaged in Training Provision
Finally, we turn our attention to the trainers themselves. Further results, not presented
here, show that the number of staff in a firm engaged in the management, design and
provision of training ranges from a median of no full-time, or part-time, staff in the
smallest size group to two full-time and four part-time staff in the largest size group.
Given that the largest size group contains firms with over 1,000 employees, it is clear
that training staff form a very small part of the workforce.
Satisfaction with Training Outcomes
The firms were asked to assess their own training outcomes by indicating how
satisfied they were that it had met its objectives. Table 4.7 shows that the majority was
largely satisfied. Indeed those who were wholly satisfied exceeded those who were
dissatisfied in any way. There is no consistent pattern of variation in these responses
across the size groups.
Table 4.7 The extent to which training has met its objectives by size class
Size classes
(employees)
Wholly
Largely
(1) 5 - 9
Mean
35%
42%
N
117
139
(2) 10 - 99 Mean
25%
51%
N
169
346
(3) 100 - 199 Mean
17%
56%
N
64
216
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
16%
57%
N
71
254
(5) 500-999 Mean
17%
59%
N
46
161
(6) > 1000 Mean
15%
62%
N
30
125
Total
Mean
21%
54%
N
497
1241
Significant at 5% level 1v,2,3,4,5,6; 2v3,4
40
Partly
17%
57
21%
142
25%
98
25%
109
22%
60
20%
41
22%
507
To a small
extent
Not at all
4%
2%
12
7
3%
0%
18
3
2%
1%
6
4
2%
0%
9
2
2%
0%
6
1
3%
0%
5
1
2%
1%
56
18
Total
100%
332
100%
678
100%
388
100%
445
100%
274
100%
202
100%
2319
Chapter 5
The Comparison of Trainers and Non-Trainers
The findings in Chapter 4 reveal that there are marked size effects in the
provision of training. The contrast is particularly strong when comparing those
above and below 100 employees. The following results are presented for all firms
and for these two size groups. We have also shown that most firms in the sample
say that they have engaged in either on- or off- the job training. For this reason
we have calculated the expenditure on training per employee and divided the
sample by this measure. Firms which have expenditure per employee of £100 or
more are described below as having high training intensity (and those with lower
levels of expenditure per employee are called low training intensity). For the
whole sample this gives about 40% of the firms with low intensity, but the figure
of £100 is simply one of convenience. Presenting the analysis in this way helps to
distinguish between training and size effects.
Training, Business Planning and Budgeting
Table 5.1 examines planning activities within the firm which is more common
amongst larger firms. High intensity trainers show a much higher propensity to
engage in planning than low intensity trainers and this is found to be the case
(and statistically significant) even within our size classes.
41
Table 5.1 Training Measures by Training Intensity and Size Class
Training
intensity
All Firms Low
Mean
N
High
Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
5-99
Low
Mean
N
empl
High
Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
100+
Low
Mean
N
empl
Mean
High
N
Total
Mean
N
Low training intensity 5-99
empl v 100+ empl
High training intensity 5-99
empl v 100+ empl
% with a
% with a
% with a % with a budget
business
human
written
for training
plan
resources plan training plan expenditure
67%
33%
40%
29%
653
659
670
655
86%
55%
63%
65%
1061
1060
1074
1071
79%
47%
54%
51%
1714
1719
1744
1726
52%
18%
27%
12%
381
382
388
378
75%
34%
44%
38%
536
537
546
543
65%
27%
37%
27%
917
919
934
921
88%
53%
57%
52%
272
277
282
277
98%
78%
83%
92%
525
523
528
528
94%
69%
74%
79%
797
800
810
805
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
Training Inputs: Staff and Facilities
We now turn to some of our measures of training input. Table 5.2 confirms that
larger firms are far more likely to have senior management with training
responsibilities and training facilities. Not surprisingly, it also shows that within
size groups, a higher proportion of high intensity trainers have training staff and
facilities.
These differences are not only statistically significant, but also quite large. For
example, 43% of the low intensity smaller firms have a senior manager
responsible for training, but 67% of the high intensity trainers have such a
person. This level amongst smaller firms with high training intensity is about the
same percentage as that for the low intensity trainers amongst the larger firms.
The highest proportion, 86%, exists among the larger, high intensity trainers.
42
Table 5.2 Training Staff and Facilities by Training Intensity and Size Class
% with
% with staff to
director for % with senior
% with a
design and
Training
employee manager for
separate teach training
intensity
relations
training
training facility
courses
All Firms Low
Mean
51%
54%
11%
20%
N
663
674
674
673
High
Mean
59%
76%
23%
38%
N
1062
1074
1074
1073
Total
Mean
56%
68%
18%
31%
N
1725
1748
1748
1746
5-99
Low
Mean
50%
43%
3%
5%
N
384
389
389
388
empl
High
Mean
55%
67%
6%
13%
N
543
546
546
546
Total
Mean
53%
57%
4%
10%
N
927
935
935
934
100+
Low
Mean
52%
68%
23%
39%
N
279
285
285
285
empl
High
Mean
63%
86%
40%
64%
N
519
528
528
527
Total
Mean
59%
80%
34%
55%
N
798
813
813
812
Low training intensity 599 empl v 100+ empl
s
s
s
High training intensity 599 empl v 100+ empl
s
s
s
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
Training and Human Resource Management Techniques
We showed above that training was associated with other management
practices. However, it was possible that this association was driven by the fact
that larger firms are more likely to train. We test this by exploring the association
within size groups. Table 5.3 shows that training and other labour management
techniques are associated with each other even after allowing for size effects. All
of the differences observed are statistically significant. This confirms our previous
finding that training is intimately associated with the adoption of other
management processes. Whilst firm size is an important determinant of the
likelihood of using these methods, trainers are more likely to be using them.
43
Table 5.3 Labour Management Processes by Training Intensity and Size Class
%
% using total using
% using job
% using
% using
quality
quality rotation/multi- performance Investors in
management circles
skilling
related pay
People
Training
intensity
All Firms Low
27%
657
40%
1055
35%
1712
19%
385
28%
537
24%
922
38%
272
53%
518
48%
790
16%
654
24%
1055
21%
1709
11%
381
17%
538
14%
919
22%
273
31%
517
28%
790
48%
672
67%
1070
59%
1742
37%
388
58%
546
49%
934
63%
284
76%
524
71%
808
38%
673
52%
1069
47%
1742
31%
388
44%
543
39%
931
48%
285
60%
526
56%
811
18%
669
33%
1067
27%
1736
7%
387
16%
540
13%
927
33%
282
50%
527
44%
809
Low training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
s
s
s
s
s
High training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
s
s
s
s
s
High
Total
5-99
empl
Low
High
Total
100+
empl
Low
High
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
Recruitment Problems
The sample firms were asked about the reasons for their recruitment difficulties
and to score them on a scale from 0 as not important to 5 as very important.
Their answers reveal quite modest differences in the scores between firm size
groups or between trainers and non-trainers.
We find that smaller firms are more likely to complain about competition from
other employers and that this is significantly greater for trainers in this size group.
High intensity trainers in both groups give greater prominence to the shortage of
suitably qualified applicants as a cause of recruitment difficulty. The low intensity
trainers give greater prominence to pay levels as a cause of recruitment
difficulties.
44
Table 5.4 Recruiting Difficulty (1:not & 5:very important) by Training Intensity and
Size Class
Low number Low number of
Too much
of applicants applicants with
competition
Training
with relevant relevant work Pay offered
from other
intensity
skills
experience being too low employers
All Firms Low
Mean
3.6
3.3
2.9
2.9
N
358
356
355
355
High
Mean
3.8
3.5
2.6
3.1
N
697
695
694
693
Total
Mean
3.8
3.4
2.7
3.0
N
1055
1051
1049
1048
5-99
Low
Mean
3.6
3.4
2.7
2.5
N
172
172
170
172
empl
High
Mean
3.9
3.6
2.5
2.8
N
295
294
292
291
Total
Mean
3.7
3.5
2.6
2.7
N
467
466
462
463
100+
Low
Mean
3.7
3.2
3.1
3.3
N
186
184
185
183
empl
High
Mean
3.8
3.4
2.7
3.2
N
402
401
402
402
Total
Mean
3.8
3.3
2.8
3.3
N
588
585
587
585
Low training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
s
High training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
s
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
The survey asked about a number of responses that firms might use when facing
recruitment difficulties. Table 5.5 shows that larger firms are more likely to take
positive actions to correct the recruitment problems, but that high intensity
trainers are also more responsive than low intensity trainers within each size
group. For example, although it was the low intensity trainers who scored the
problem of low pay more highly, they are significantly less likely to have raised
wages and salaries in response to the problem.
The high intensity trainers are significantly more active in their response than
non-trainers in each of the response categories and are much more likely to have
increased their training programmes as a result of the recruitment difficulties.
45
Table 5.5 Response to Recruitment Difficulties by Training Intensity and Size Class
% which
% which
% which
have
have
% which have
have
% which
increased increased off increased
redefined have used
on the job
the job
salaries/
jobs
new
training
training
wages
/occupations technology
Training
intensity
All Firms Low
High
Total
5-99
empl
Low
High
Total
100+
empl
Low
High
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Low training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
High training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
52%
359
69%
700
63%
1059
36%
173
60%
294
51%
467
66%
186
75%
406
72%
592
36%
360
55%
701
48%
1061
21%
173
39%
294
32%
467
49%
187
66%
407
61%
594
s
s
67%
357
73%
695
71%
1052
64%
171
74%
294
70%
465
69%
186
72%
401
71%
587
39%
360
48%
699
45%
1059
33%
173
43%
294
39%
467
45%
187
52%
405
50%
592
49%
360
65%
701
59%
1061
42%
173
59%
295
53%
468
56%
187
69%
406
65%
593
s
s
s
s
s
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
Changing Work Practices, Products or Organisation
Firms were asked about whether there had been significant changes in their work
practices, products, or organisation in the last three years. A higher proportion of
larger firms and a higher proportion of trainers had experienced these changes.
46
Table 5.6 Significant Changes Introduced in Last 3 Years by Training Intensity and Size Class
Changes in
Changes in Changes in
Changes in production or Changes in Changes in
work
Initiatives to
Training
payment
service
working time organisation techniques or
involve
intensity
systems
technology arrangements
of work
procedures employees
All Firms Low
Mean
30%
44%
28%
38%
46%
46%
N
619
618
621
620
622
620
High
Mean
40%
62%
38%
55%
66%
65%
N
975
978
982
977
983
984
Total
Mean
36%
55%
34%
48%
58%
58%
N
1594
1596
1603
1597
1605
1604
5-99
Low
Mean
22%
35%
18%
28%
33%
35%
N
360
362
361
361
362
360
empl
High
Mean
34%
54%
27%
47%
56%
53%
N
500
502
501
503
504
504
Total
Mean
29%
46%
23%
39%
47%
45%
N
860
864
862
864
866
864
100+
Low
Mean
41%
57%
41%
52%
63%
62%
N
259
256
260
259
260
260
empl
Mean
46%
High
71%
51%
63%
76%
78%
N
475
476
481
474
479
480
Total
Mean
44%
66%
47%
59%
72%
72%
N
734
732
741
733
739
740
Low training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
High training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
New
products
/services
60%
626
73%
982
68%
1608
52%
363
63%
504
58%
867
72%
263
85%
478
80%
741
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
47
So we can conclude that trainers are more active in terms of most forms of
management activity in general than are non-trainers.
Innovation and Growth Objectives
Before turning to analyse the relationship between training and performance we
can look at the association of training with innovation activity and growth
objectives. In terms of both of these measures larger firms show greater activity.
But, Table 5.7 also examines this within the two size groups. It shows that firms
with a high training intensity have significantly greater growth ambitions in each
size group.
The measure of innovation used here is the % of current sales which is due to
products, or services, which were new to the firm. We can see that within both size
classes the trainers have higher innovation by this measure, but the difference is
statistically significant only within the larger size group.
Table 5.7 Innovation Activity and Growth Objectives by Training Intensity and
Size Class
Training
intensity
All Firms
% intending to grow Mean % of sales that
substantially
are new products
Low
Mean
N
High
Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
5-99
Low
Mean
N
empl
High
Mean
N
Total
Mean
N
100+
Low
Mean
N
empl
Mean
High
N
Total
Mean
N
Low training intensity 5-99 empl v
100+ empl
21%
648
33%
1052
28%
1700
17%
367
27%
535
23%
902
26%
281
38%
517
34%
798
11.1%
534
15.2%
841
13.6%
1375
10.8%
318
14.1%
443
12.8%
761
11.6%
216
16.5%
398
14.8%
614
s
High training intensity 5-99 empl v
100+ empl
s
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
48
Chapter 6
Training and Performance
Self-assessment of Training Outcomes
In order to start our evaluation of the impact of training on performance we can turn
to the firms themselves. They were asked to evaluate the impact of their training
over the past three years in terms of turnover, employment, labour productivity and
profitability. They answered on a scale of five possible answers ranging from a lot
smaller to a lot larger, with the middle answer as no difference. Table 6.1 shows
the proportion of firms that indicated that training had led to an increase in these
performance variables.
The table provides analysis by size class, but first we can examine the bottom row
for all firms. We can see that about half of our sample felt that training had
increased turnover and profit margin. Almost three-quarters indicated that training
had improved labour productivity. These are very positive attitudes towards training
outcomes. Only in the case of employment did less than half believe that it had
increased as a result of training, but this was still a higher proportion than those
indicating that it had decreased.
Table 6.1 % of Firms Thinking that Training in Last Three Years had
Increased the Performance in the Following Areas by Size
Category
Analysis Size classes
(employees)
Turnover Employment
(1) 5 – 9
Mean
47%
28%
(2)10 – 99
Labour
Pre-tax profit
productivity
margin
56%
42%
Mean
55%
35%
66%
49%
(3)100 - 199 Mean
54%
40%
75%
51%
(4) 200 - 499 Mean
58%
44%
78%
59%
(5) 500-999 Mean
58%
38%
82%
55%
(6) > 1000
Mean
61%
43%
78%
63%
Total
Mean
N
55%
2131
37%
2225
Significant at 5% level 1v4,5,6
1v4; 2v4
71%
51%
1732
2191
1v4,5,6;
1v2,3,4,5,6;
2v3,4,5,6; 3v5 2v4,5,6; 3v6
Turning now to the analysis across size classes we find significantly less positive
attitudes to training outcomes amongst the smallest size groups. The increase in
perceived benefit is much greater up to a firm size of 100 employees than it is
beyond this level (where the increase is generally not statistically significant).
49
There is less variation in the assessment of training outcomes across our sectors.
Conventional manufacturing appears to have the lowest valuation of training
benefits in general. Financial and business services are more positive than
average in each area. Manufacturing sectors are most positive about the impact of
training on labour productivity; but the conventional manufacturing sector is
significantly less optimistic about the impact of training on turnover, employment
and profitability than the other four sectors.
Table 6.2 % of Firms Thinking that Training in Last Three Years had
Increased the Performance in the Following Areas by Sector
Labour Pre-tax profit
Sector
Turnover Employment productivity
margin
(1)Hi tech
Mean
56%
39%
70%
55%
manufacturing
(2)Other
Mean
49%
28%
73%
44%
manufacturing
(3)Distribution, Mean
56%
33%
66%
52%
Hotels
(4)Financial
Mean
56%
43%
69%
56%
Services
(5)Business
Mean
59%
48%
74%
55%
Services
Total
Mean
55%
37%
71%
51%
N
2225
1732
2131
2191
1v2;
1v2,4,5;
2v3,4,5
1v2; 2v3,4,5
Significant at 5% level
2v3,4,5; 3v4,5
Self-assessment of Business Performance by Intensity of Training Activity and Size
The next stage of evaluation is to use firms’ own assessment of their current
performance relative to their peers. This self-assessment of performance can be
examined against our size and training intensity groups. The results of this analysis
are shown in Table 6.3. In general about half of the firms tend to assess
themselves as above average in terms of financial performance and labour
productivity. More dramatically, 80% believe they are above average in product or
service quality. On the other hand, only 37% believe they are above average in
terms of labour costs – but there may be a problem with the interpretation of what
is meant by better than average labour costs. The differences across the size
groups in their self-evaluation of performance are small, but larger firms are more
confident than smaller firms about their relative financial performance.
The comparison of the high intensity trainers and low intensity trainers yields mixed
results. Amongst the smaller size group a higher proportion of high intensity
trainers evaluate their financial performance and product quality to be much better;
but low intensity trainers have similar judgements of their performance in terms of
labour productivity and labour costs. Amongst the larger size groups there is little
difference between the evaluations of high and low intensity trainers.
50
Table 6.3 % of Firms Saying that They have Above Average
Performance in the Following Areas by Size Category
Training
intensity
All Firms Low
N
High
N
Total
N
5-99
empl
Low
N
High
N
Total
N
100+
empl
Low
N
High
N
Total
N
Financial
Labour
Product
performance productivity quality
45%
49%
77%
549
545
597
53%
50%
81%
933
908
997
50%
49%
79%
1482
1453
1594
40%
50%
76%
308
305
335
51%
52%
83%
466
467
503
47%
51%
80%
774
772
838
51%
49%
77%
241
240
262
56%
47%
79%
467
441
494
54%
47%
78%
708
681
756
Low training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
High training intensity
5-99 empl v 100+ empl
s
Labour
costs
37%
546
37%
922
37%
1468
37%
306
39%
470
38%
776
37%
240
35%
452
36%
692
s
Figures in bold denotes significance at 5% level, for all firms and within size groups
Actual Business Performance by Intensity of Training Activity and Size
Finally, before turning to the multivariate econometric modelling of the relationship,
we can examine the link between training and performance. Table 6.4 crosstabulates the % distribution of firms by their employment growth with size and
training intensity. We recall that our firms suggested that employment growth was
the least affected by training. Overall about 30% of firms (for which data are
available) grew by more than 20% in terms of their employment over the past three
years. High intensity trainers had a higher proportion of fast growers than low
intensity trainers, but there was little difference in the larger size group. This finding
confirms the firms’ own assessment of the impact of training.
51
Table 6.4 Employment Growth Classes by Size Category and Training Intensity
Training
intensity
Less than 0% 0 – 20%
> 20%
Total
All Firms Low
Mean
39%
34%
27%
100%
N
213
High
Mean
45%
25%
30%
100%
N
403
Total
Mean
43%
28%
29%
100%
N
616
5-99
Low
Mean
54%
24%
22%
100%
N
empl
37
High
Mean
47%
21%
32%
100%
N
78
Total
Mean
50%
22%
29%
100%
N
115
100+
Low
Mean
36%
36%
28%
100%
N
empl
176
Mean
High
44%
27%
30%
100%
N
325
Total
Mean
41%
30%
29%
100%
N
501
The second performance variable is turnover growth over the past three years. The
firms believed that training had increased this, particularly amongst the larger size
groups. Table 6.5 examines the distribution of firms across turnover growth
categories. It compares the distribution of high intensity and low intensity trainers
across these growth categories and does so within our size groupings.
The table reveals that high intensity trainers do have a higher proportion of firms in
the fast growth category (more than 40% over the past three years) than low
intensity trainers; but this relationship is found only in the group of firms with less
than 100 employees.
52
Table 6.5 Turnover Growth Classes by Size Category and Training Intensity
Training
Less than
intensity
0%
0 – 10% 10 – 40%
> 40%
Total
All
Firms Low
29%
15%
33%
23%
100%
N
203
High
32%
15%
28%
25%
100%
N
387
Total
31%
15%
30%
24%
100%
N
590
5-99
Low
35%
13%
26%
26%
100%
N
empl
46
High
36%
10%
22%
32%
100%
N
87
Total
35%
11%
23%
30%
100%
N
133
100+ Low
27%
16%
35%
22%
100%
N
empl
157
High
31%
17%
30%
22%
100%
N
300
Total
30%
16%
32%
22%
100%
N
457
The next set of cross tabulations concerns the change in the profit margin from two
years ago until today (see Table 6.6). The change in profit margin is shown in
different categories and presented in the same way as the turnover growth table
(Table 6.5) above. Slightly more than half of the firms managed to increase their
profit margin from three years ago.
The improvement in profit margin is greater amongst the smaller firms, but there
are no significant differences in the change in profit margins between high and low
intensity trainers.
53
Table 6.6 Profit Margin Change Classes by Size Category and Training Intensity
Training
intensity
All
Firms
Low
Less than -5%
-5 – 0%
0 – 5%
> 5%
Total
16%
42%
25%
17%
24%
32%
24%
20%
21%
35%
25%
19%
12%
35%
25%
28%
27%
21%
24%
28%
22%
26%
24%
28%
17%
44%
25%
14%
23%
35%
24%
18%
21%
38%
25%
16%
100%
212
100%
396
100%
608
100%
49
100%
92
100%
141
100%
163
100
304
100
467
N
High
N
Total
N
5-99
empl
Low
N
High
N
Total
N
100+
empl
Low
N
High
N
Total
N
Low training intensity: 5-99 empl v 100+ empl: s
The final table (Table 6.7) examines median values for employment growth,
turnover growth and the profit margin instead of examining growth and profitability
classes. It compares and contrasts these median values across size and training
intensity groups. Some interesting findings emerge which will need to be subjected
to multivariate examination. The picture for all firms suggests that training is
associated with slightly better than average profitability, neutral turnover growth
and lower employment growth.
The picture is revised when we look within our size groups. Amongst the larger
firms, whilst higher training intensity is associated with somewhat higher median
profit margins, the group has lower turnover growth and much lower employment
growth.
On the other hand the picture is more positive for training amongst the less than
100 employees group. Here we can see very much higher profitability and better
growth performance in terms of both turnover and employment. It must be pointed
out that none of these differences are statistically significant. It also remains to be
seen whether these findings remain when subjected to multivariate modelling and
after due account has been taken of the selection into training.
54
Table 6.7 Median Employment Growth, Turnover Growth and
Profit Margin by Size Category and Training Intensity
Training
Employment Turnover
Profit
intensity
Growth
Growth
Margin
All Firms Low
5.6%
12.8%
5.0%
N
High
3.1%
11.8%
5.7%
N
Total
4.4%
12.4%
5.5%
N
616
590
1104
5-99
Low
0.0%
11.2%
6.3%
N
empl
High
2.4%
13.2%
9.3%
N
Total
1.7%
12.0%
8.0%
N
115
133
490
100+
Low
6.2%
13.9%
3.7%
N
empl
High
3.3%
11.7%
4.6%
N
Total
5.0%
12.7%
4.1%
N
501
457
614
Low training intensity 5-99
empl v 100+ empl
High training intensity 5-99
empl v 100+ empl
s
s
55
Chapter 7
Multivariate Analysis of the Training Model
Introduction
So far we have considered the impact of training on a variety of performance
measures and have considered whether these impacts varied by size or sector.
We have taken these conditioning factors into account in a univariate, or one at a
time, way. We now turn to an analysis that takes into account a much wider range
of conditioning factors and does so in a multivariate way. This allows for their
combined effect to be taken into account. In this analysis we also allow for the fact
that the level of training required by a firm to simply maintain performance, rather
than improve it, may vary with the characteristics and industrial context of the firm
itself. Thus for some firms training intensity will be higher of necessity, but
performance will not improve as a result of this higher level of intensity.
We proceed by first building a parsimonious model of the determinants of training
intensity. We then estimate models of employment, turnover, profit margin and
productivity performance that include training intensity as an independent variable.
We first measure training intensity as expenditure on training per firm, and then
measure it as training expenditure per person. In each performance model in
assessing the impact of training we use instrumental variable methods which allow
us to test for the effect that firm characteristics have on requiring firms to train
simply to maintain performance, and where appropriate adjust the performance
regressions for that effect.
This multivariate analysis is complementary to the subjective performance
evaluation of performance effects discussed above. In those subjective estimates
we can consider the firms, when answering, to have subjectively controlled for
those factors requiring them to train, and for those factors other than training that
impacted upon their performance. We begin by developing a model of the
determinants of training expenditure and then turn to analysis of performance
effects which takes account of the possible presence of factors which determine
both the level of performance and the level of training intensity.
The Determinants of Training Expenditures
The model we estimate is based on the argument that we expect training spending
per firm (TRSPENDC) and training spending per employee (TRSPEMP) to be
related to:



the logarithm of the number of employees (LAVEMP3A), which represents
the pool of potential trainees;
and in order to allow for the possibility of scale economies in training
expenditure per employee, we also introduce the square of the employee
size term (LAVEMP3A2) in the training spend per employee equation;
the length of time taken to train employees in non-managerial skill groups
(JOBNMANx, a set of dummy variables where x increases with the length
of training required);
56















a dummy variable with a value of 1 if the firm reported recruiting difficulties
in any non-management skill group (RECDIF);
a dummy variable with a value of 1 if the firm reported difficulties in
recruiting managers (RECDIF1);
the growth objectives of the firm (GROWDUMx, where x decreases with
increases in the growth ambitions of the firm);
a dummy variable with the value of 1 if the firm has a business plan
(BUSPL);
a dummy variable with the value of 1 if the firm has a written training plan
(WRTRPL);
a dummy variable with the value of 1 if the firm has a human resources plan
(HRPL);
a dummy variable with the value of 1 if the firm has a director responsible
for employee relations (EMPREL);
the recent introduction of initiatives to involve employees in work design
and practices (WORKCH6, a dummy with a value of 1 when a change has
been introduced in the last three years);
the use by firms of total quality management (a dummy variable, WORK4);
the use by firms of quality circles (a dummy variable, WORK5);
the use by firms of job rotation/multiskilling practices (a dummy variable,
WORK6);
the use by firms of performance related pay (a dummy variable, WORK7);
the adoption by firms of Investors in People (a dummy variable, WORK8);
the degree to which firms believe that skill requirements for their firm have
been rising in the past three years (SKILLDUMx, where x increases with the
extent to which the firm believes that the requirements have been
increasing); and
the status of the firm as independent or a subsidiary INDDUM2, (which we
showed earlier to be highly correlated with training intensity).
The results of a regression analysis of these variables are shown in Table 7.1
below. The results cover both total training spending per firm and training spending
per employee. The estimations are presented with significance levels adjusted for
heteroscedasticity. For employment size we use employment data relating to the
latest financial year. (We experimented with employment as measured in the
sampling frame and interview ‘proving’ questions with similar results). The pattern
of training expenditures across firms is highly skewed, as is size, we therefore
carry out our analysis using logarithmic transformations of our training and size
data.
The model provides a very good explanation of the cross-section variation in
training spending by firms. The estimated equation, shown in the first column,
explains around 45% of the variation in training spend for the full sample and is
highly significant. Employment size is a highly significant, and positive, determinant
of training spend. The length of time taken to train an employee is also significant
(when that period is over six months and is measured relative to a requirement of
one week or less i.e. JOBNMAN4 and JOBNMAN5). The growth ambitions of the
firm (measured here relative to fast growth) are also significantly related to training
spend – lower training spending being significantly related to lower growth
57
ambitions. Difficulties in recruiting managers and senior administrators also lead to
more training expenditure, but we do not find this to be the case for recruitment
difficulties with other groups. The use of business, human resources and training
plans also significantly add to the amount of training expenditure undertaken by the
firm. The recent introduction of initiatives to involve employees in work design and
practices is associated with higher training spending. The use of more
sophisticated management tools such as TQM and job rotation is also significantly
related to higher spending. All other things being equal, a firm that is part of a
larger group is likely to be spending more on training.
The results are also shown for the sample split between those above and those
below 100 employees. The findings are almost identical for the larger size group,
but amongst this group performance related pay is also associated with more
training expenditures. The degree of explanation is lower amongst the smaller size
group and the impact of the length of training required is not important, but most of
the other findings are supported.
The right hand side of the table displays the findings for the determinants of the
level of annual training spending per employee. The degree of explanation is
reduced since size no longer dominates as an explanatory variable. Indeed, size is
entered here as a quadratic since it was considered possible that the level of
training spending per employee might rise in going from very small firms to larger
firms and then fall, partly due to economies of scale in training provision. There is
some evidence for this hypothesis, especially amongst the smaller size group.
Overall, the findings for the larger size group are very much in line with those for
the determinants of total training expenditures by the firm. For the smaller size
group we find the existence of a written training plan and a director responsible for
employees are important determinants of training expenditure per employee.
The second table, Table 7.2, is designed to illustrate the quantitative impact of
different combinations of factors on training expenditure in firms of different sizes. It
thus provides an analysis of economic significance to complement the analysis of
statistical significance in Table 7.1. It reveals that the factors included have a
material effect on the level of training expenditures. The findings derived from the
total training spending model are in line with those for the training spending per
employee. They reveal that firms invest more in this area of expenditure if they are
ambitious, if they have become imbued in the importance of planning and if they
are subsidiaries of a larger organisation.
58
Table 7.1: The Determinants of Training Expenditure per Firm and per Employee
Log Spending Per Firm
Log Spending Per Employee
<100
>100
<100
>100
Variables
All
All
Employees Employees
Employees Employees
LAVEMP3A
LAVEMP3A2
JOBNMAN2
JOBNMAN3
JOBNMAN4
JOBNMAN5
GROWDUM
2
GROWDUM
3
BUSPL
WRTRPL
RECDIF
RECDIF1
WORKCH6
WORK4
WORK5
WORK6
WORK7
WORK8
EMPREL
HRPL
SKILLDUM2
INDDUM2
CONSTANT
0.60 **
0.38
0.10
0.27
0.56 *
0.69 **
0.64
**
-0.28
-0.43
0.15
-0.23
0.21
0.45
0.66
1.01
**
**
-0.31 **
-0.15
-0.52
0.44
0.30
-0.06
0.36
0.20
0.21
-0.10
0.27
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.22
0.00
0.40
5.90
-0.94 **
0.37
0.51
-0.11
0.14
0.39
0.49
-0.06
0.23
-0.18
0.03
0.25
0.08
0.07
0.11
7.31 **
**
**
**
**
*
**
**
*
**
**
**
0.28
-0.05 *
0.11
0.28
0.56
0.92 **
1.61 *
-0.26 *
-0.03
0.17
0.61
0.62
0.12
-0.03
0.18
0.33
0.56 *
1.02 **
-0.32 **
-0.15
0.24
-0.26 **
-0.46
0.49
0.28
-0.02
0.37
0.16
0.19
-0.09
0.29
0.22
0.12
0.07
0.23
-0.07
0.42
5.52
-0.32
0.26
0.27
-0.13
0.33
0.14
0.12
-0.08
0.25
0.17
0.07
0.07
0.20
0.02
0.42
3.76
-0.30
0.14
0.71 **
-0.21
0.04
0.00
-0.06
-0.22
0.27
-0.14
-0.07
0.51 **
-0.15
0.31
0.15
1.99
-0.39
0.47
0.21
-0.05
0.33
0.18
0.19
-0.08
0.25
0.22
0.08
-0.05
0.27
-0.10
0.46
4.08
**
**
**
**
*
**
**
*
**
**
*
*
**
**
**
*
*
**
**
N
645
120
525
645
120
525
R-squared
0.46
0.30
0.38
0.17
0.24
0.20
59
*
**
*
**
*
**
**
**
**
Table 7.2: Determinants of Training Expenditure
20
Predicted training
expenditure per firm:
Predicted training
expenditure per employee:
Length of training:
< 1 week
> 6 months
Have business, HR, training
plan:
No
Yes
Growth objectives:
Stay same size
Grow substantially
Management recruit
problems:
No
Yes
Use job rotation, TQM, IiP:
No
Yes
Subsidiary of larger
organisation:
No
Yes
1,805
66
20
20
20
245
395
459
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
160
200
258
300
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
500
500
500
500
824
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
423
670
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
122
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
60
√
√
√
27
√
√
√
√
√
520
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
150
√
√
√
33
√
√
√
√
√
43
√
√
√
Number of employees
80
80
200 200
200
√
√
√
80
5,477 34,145 38,116 3,057 9,276 57,825 64,548 4,587 24,123 100,803 153,418 8,245 43,362 181,199 275,777
√
√
80
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
The Performance Effects of Training
We now turn to an analysis of performance effects. We estimate four
performance models. The first two relate to employment growth and turnover
growth respectively. The others relate to profit margin and productivity growth
performance. In each case we estimate both linear and quadratic models of the
impact of training spend. We also report results for the sample as a whole and for
the sample split between larger and smaller businesses. The size split is
determined by whether the number of employees is greater, or less than, one
hundred. Finally the training variable is measured both by expenditure per firm
and by expenditure per employee.
We begin with turnover growth and employment growth. We analyse growth over
the three years ending prior to the training survey date. As in our previous work
on training for the DfES, we employ a simple variant of the Law of Proportionate
Effect to predict end period size as a function of opening size. Within that
framework, and based on our earlier work for the DfES on models of the impact
of training on performance we allow for a number of other potentially important
influences:












the impact of business age, used here in its logarithmic form (LAGE);
the employment size of the business in its logarithmic form (LAVEMP3A
for the latest year and LAVEMP1 for the earliest of the three years);
the equivalent measures for turnover (LTURN3 and LTURN1);
the profit margin of the previous year (PRMRGN2);
industry (a set of dummy variables with high tech manufacturing as the
base comparison and SICDUM2=1 for other manufacturing and zero
otherwise, SICDUM3=1 for distribution and hotels and zero otherwise,
SICDUM4=1 for financial services and zero otherwise, and SICDUM5=1
for business services and zero otherwise);
the formality of business structure in terms of the existence of business
planning (BUSPL, a dummy with a value of 1 if the plan exists and zero
otherwise);
the existence of a written training plan (WRTRPL, a dummy with a value
of 1 if the plan exists and zero otherwise);
innovative activity (NEW, a dummy with a value of 1 if the a new product
or service has been introduced and zero otherwise);
an alternative measure of innovation which measures the proportion of
sales accounted for by new products or services (SALPC%);
the use by firms of quality circles (a dummy variable, WORK5 with a value
of 1 if the practice exists and zero otherwise);
the use by firms of job rotation/multiskilling practices (a dummy variable,
WORK6 with a value of 1 if the practice exists and zero otherwise);
the use by firms of performance related pay (a dummy variable, WORK7
with a value of 1 if the practice exists and zero otherwise);
61





the introduction by firms of Investors in People (a dummy variable,
WORK8 with a value of 1 if the practice exists and zero otherwise);
the number of firms that are regarded as serious competitors (COMPS);
the percentage of sales in the previous year accounted for by the largest
customer (LARGEST);
the level of spending on training by the firm, measured in its logarithmic
form (LTRSPENDC), or its equivalent for training expenditure per
employee (LTRSPEMP);
and, in order to allow for the possibility of a non-linear impact of training,
and for an optimum level of spending, we also introduce the square of the
spending per firm term (LTRSPENDC2), or its equivalent for the square of
training expenditure per employee (LTRSPEMP2).
Since we have seen that some of the variables in our performance equation are
also themselves determinants of training spend, an ordinary least squares
regression of performance on training may give spurious results. A positive
relationship could arise simply from the fact that both performance and training
are related to the same factors. We use an instrumental variable approach to test
and where appropriate correct for this sort of effect. In this approach we replace
training in our performance equation by ‘instrumental’ variables derived from our
model of training determinants. This corrects for the presence of effects arising
from the endogeneity of training spend (i.e. the effects of the extent to which both
training and performance are mutually determined by a common set of factors).
In each case we compare the results of the IVR and OLS estimates by
performing the Hausman1 test on the difference between the two sets of
estimated coefficients. In those cases where there is no significant difference in
the estimated coefficients, and therefore no evidence of endogeneity, we use the
OLS regression findings and report them as such.
The results of the Hausman test for quadratic and linear models for employment
growth suggest that there are significant endogeneity problems that require the
use of an instrumental variables approach in about half the cases. The
regression results are presented for training spending per firm in Table 7.3 and
for spending per employee in Table 7.4. They reveal that opening size is
significantly related to closing size and, being significantly less than one, implies
that small firms grow faster. Growth is significantly positively affected by training
spend in some cases and there is some evidence for a quadratic relationship,
which suggests that there are diminishing returns to training spending. This is
represented by the significantly negative coefficient on the squared training
spend term in some of the training expenditure per firm equations, but there is no
evidence for a maximum optimal level of training expenditure per employee in the
results presented in Table 7.4. The interpretation of these results is presented in
Table 7.5 and reveals how inconsistent and weak the relationship appears to be.
1
Hausman, J. 1978 ‘Specification tests in econometrics’ Econometrica, 46, pp. 1251-1271
62
Whether examined from the quadratic or linear model we find a very mixed and
weak impact of training spending on employment growth.
Table 7.3: The Impact of Training Spending per Firm on Employment Growth
Dependent variable: the logarithm of firm employment in the third year
Training variable: training expenditure per firm
All
(1)
OLS
(2)
OLS
<100
(3)
(4)
IVR
OLS
>100
(5)
(6)
OLS
IVR
LAVEMP1
LAGE
SICDUM2
SICDUM3
SICDUM4
SICDUM5
BUSPL
NEW
WORK5
WORK6
WORK7
WORK8
LTRSPENDC
LTRSPENDC2
CONSTANT
0.88 ** 0.88 **
-0.03
-0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.09 * 0.09 *
-0.06
-0.07
-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.07 ** 0.16 *
0.00
0.08
-0.41
0.54 ** 0.46 **
0.14
0.12
-0.38
-0.34
-0.42
-0.29
-0.21
-0.15
-0.17
-0.19
-0.07
-0.12
0.02
-0.03
-0.17
-0.10
0.15
0.03
-0.08
-0.07
0.00
0.01
-0.02
1.31 **
-0.06 **
1.63 * -4.56 **
0.86
-0.06
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.01
0.02
-0.03
-0.09
0.01
0.00
0.07
N
709
709
120
137
572
523
R-squared
0.87
0.87
0.48
0.56
0.87
0.38
63
** 0.70
** -0.02
0.15
** 0.26
-0.12
** -0.09
-0.04
0.02
-0.07
** -0.20
-0.10
-0.04
** -3.31
0.16
0.37 ** 18.64
**
**
**
*
Table 7.4: The Impact of Training Spending per Employee on Employment
Growth
Dependent variable: the logarithm of firm employment in the third year
Training variable: training expenditure per employee
All
(1)
OLS
(2)
IVR
LAVEMP1
LAGE
SICDUM2
SICDUM3
SICDUM4
SICDUM5
BUSPL
NEW
WORK5
WORK6
WORK7
WORK8
LTRSPEMP
LTRSPEMP2
CONSTANT
0.93 ** 0.92 **
-0.03
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
0.01
-0.07
0.06
-0.01
0.12 ** -0.08
-0.03
0.01
0.00
0.06
-0.04
-0.08
0.00
-0.08
0.08 * 0.04
0.04
0.05
0.00
-2.05 *
0.19 *
0.44 ** 5.83 *
N
709
R-squared
0.86
643
0.68
<100
(3)
(4)
OLS
OLS
>100
(5)
(6)
OLS
IVR
0.54 ** 0.54 **
0.15
0.15
-0.35
-0.34
-0.38
-0.37
-0.24
-0.24
-0.16
-0.16
0.03
0.03
0.00
-0.01
-0.07
-0.06
0.08
0.08
-0.07
-0.07
0.01
0.01
-0.02
0.09
-0.01
1.45 ** 1.12
0.90
-0.06
0.01
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.02
-0.03
-0.07
0.03
0.02
0.01
** 0.89
** -0.02
0.07
** 0.12
* -0.01
** -0.09
0.07
0.06
-0.08
** -0.15
-0.04
0.01
-2.41
0.23
0.71 ** 6.76
137
137
572
523
0.51
0.52
0.86
0.30
64
**
**
**
**
**
Table 7.5: Effects of Training Expenditure: % Employment Growth over 3 years
Number of employees
50
50
50
50
500
500
500
500
Predicted employment
growth over three years:
Quadratic model
Linear model
65.3
21.2
-11.1
11.8
5.5
10.3
25.5
6.8
22.9
5.3
1.2
-3.2
-14.5
8.3
2.6
13.7
Training expenditure per
firm:
£5,000
√
√
£10,000
√
√
£50,000
√
√
£100,000
√
√
£250,000
Predicted employment
growth over three years:
Quadratic model
Linear model
15.0
16.9
15.3
16.0
15.4
15.3
14.2
13.2
23.2
14.4
11.1
14.7
3.2
15.7
26.1
16.5
Training expenditure per
employee:
£50
√
√
£75
√
√
£100
√
√
£250
√
√
£500
65
The results for turnover are qualitatively very similar. If we focus first on the
findings for training expenditures per firm (reported in Table 7.6), we see that
training generally has a positive influence on turnover growth. There is evidence
for endogenity in two-thirds of the runs and all of the runs reveal that growth is
negatively related to opening size. There are diminishing returns to spending,
although in this case the negative sign on the squared term in training spend is
significant only for the smaller firms sample. Amongst the larger sample we find
that firms which use job rotation and multi-skilling have significantly slower
turnover growth; and the existence of a business plan also has a negative,
though generally insignificant, effect on turnover growth.
Table 7.6: The Impact of Training Spending per Firm on Turnover Growth
Dependent variable: the logarithm firm sales in the third year
Training variable:
training expenditure per firm
All
(1)
IVR
(2)
OLS
(3)
OLS
<100
(4)
IVR
0.83 ** 0.75 **
-0.05
-0.12
-0.05
0.03
0.10
0.31
-0.01
0.17
0.03
0.08
-0.10
-0.62 *
0.04
-0.07
0.05
-0.11
0.09
-0.00
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.00
2.15 **
-0.10 **
2.74 ** -6.09 **
(5)
IVR
>100
(6)
IVR
LTURN1
LAGE
SICDUM2
SICDUM3
SICDUM4
SICDUM5
BUSPL
NEW
WORK5
WORK6
WORK7
WORK8
LTRSPENDC
LTRSPENDC2
CONSTANT
0.81 ** 0.95 **
-0.08
-0.07 **
0.01
-0.08 *
0.08
-0.01
-0.06
0.06
0.08
0.02
-0.22
-0.04
0.00
0.02
-0.04
-0.05
-0.19 ** -0.07 **
0.00
0.04
-0.02
0.03
0.25 ** 0.09
-0.00
1.22 ** 0.50
0.84
-0.07
-0.03
0.05
0.01
0.08
-0.14
0.01
-0.04
-0.20
-0.01
-0.02
0.21
** 0.84 **
** -0.07 **
-0.03
0.05
-0.01
-0.08
* -0.14
0.01
-0.04
** -0.20 **
-0.01
-0.02
** 0.14
0.00
1.13 ** 1.48
N
562
680
107
91
471
471
R-squared
0.90
0.94
0.86
0.78
0.88
0.88
The findings for training expenditure per employee are shown in Table 7.7 below.
The most striking result is that the level of training expenditure per employee
appears to be largely irrelevant for turnover growth. The findings suggest that the
only useful predictor of future sales is past sales and, perhaps, the sector in
which the firm operates.
66
Table 7.7: The Impact of Training Spending per Employee on Turnover Growth
Dependent variable: the logarithm firm sales in the third year
Training variable: training expenditure per employee
All
(1)
OLS
(2)
IVR
** 0.98 **
** -0.07 **
** -0.16 **
-0.12 *
0.12
0.06
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.04
* 0.07 *
0.08 **
0.11
-0.02
0.58 ** 0.79
<100
(3)
(4)
OLS
OLS
>100
(5)
(6)
OLS
OLS
0.83 ** 0.83 **
-0.05
-0.04
-0.09
-0.05
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.08
-0.09
-0.08
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.13
0.14
-0.01
0.01
0.08
0.07
-0.06
0.18
-0.02
2.98 ** 2.27 **
0.98
-0.07
-0.11
-0.04
0.13
0.03
0.07
0.03
-0.05
-0.09
0.04
0.03
0.01
LTURN1
LAGE
SICDUM2
SICDUM3
SICDUM4
SICDUM5
BUSPL
NEW
WORK5
WORK6
WORK7
WORK8
LTRSPEMP
LTRSPEMP2
CONSTANT
0.99
-0.07
-0.10
-0.03
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.02
-0.04
-0.04
0.06
0.05
0.00
** 0.98 **
** -0.07 **
** -0.12 **
-0.04
0.11
0.03
0.07
0.03
-0.05
** -0.09 **
0.04
0.03
-0.07
0.01
0.57 ** 0.80 **
N
680
562
107
107
573
573
R-squared
0.94
0.91
0.86
0.86
0.93
0.93
The random nature of the results for training spending per firm and the general
insignificance of the level of training expenditure per employee are illustrated in
the interpretation table, Table 7.8. Even quite wide variations in spending per
employee make little difference to the growth of turnover likely to be achieved by
the firm. Only in the larger size group can we see a significant quantitative impact
of training by the firm and, to a lesser extent training per employee, on its
turnover growth.
67
Table 7.8: Effects of Training Expenditure: % Sales Growth over 3 years
Sales £ per annum
£5m £5m £5m £5m £100m £100m £100m
Predicted sales
growth over three
years:
Quadratic model
Linear model
-2.5 26.7 60.5 51.5
16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4
-19.1
-19.9
11.7
12.3
28.9
30.0
£100m
56.5
57.5
Training expenditure
per firm:
£5,000
√
√
£10,000
√
√
£50,000
√
√
£100,000
√
√
£250,000
Predicted sales
growth over three
years:
Quadratic model
Linear model
21.6 22.4 22.5 19.9
28.8 25.7 23.5 16.9
17.0
20.5
17.7
20.8
21.1
21.9
25.2
22.8
Training expenditure
per employee:
£50
£75
√
√
√
√
£100
√
√
£250
√
√
£500
68
Despite our findings of rather erratic and insignificant effects of training on the
growth of employment and turnover, the question remains as to whether training
spending has a beneficial impact on profitability. For the analysis of profit margins
data availability restricted our analysis to profit experience over the year
preceding the survey. We use a simple model of the persistence of profit margin
levels conditioning on the set of variables used in the growth equations.
Put simply, we find that the impact of training expenditure per firm generally has
a positive impact on the change in the profit margin and that the impact is greater
amongst the smaller firm sample.
Table 7.9: The Impact of Training Spending per Firm on Profit Margin
Dependent variable: the firm’s profit margin in the latest year
Training variable: training expenditure per firm
All
(1)
OLS
(2)
OLS
** 0.71
-0.20
0.67
1.86
0.73
** 7.50
1.66
-1.70
0.00
-0.00
-0.12
** -1.78
** 2.07
1.13
-0.05
-1.52
-7.04
(3)
OLS
**
<100
(4)
IVR
>100
(6)
OLS
PRMRGN2
LAVEMP3A
LAGE
SICDUM2
SICDUM3
SICDUM4
SICDUM5
BUSPL
SALPC%
COMPS
LARGEST
WORK7
WORK8
LTRSPENDC
LTRSPENDC2
CONSTANT
0.71
-0.14
0.68
1.81
0.71
7.44
1.61
-1.57
0.00
-0.00
-0.11
-1.80
2.10
0.05
N
429
429
74
74
355
355
R-squared
0.52
0.52
0.66
0.68
0.51
0.51
**
**
**
0.80 ** 0.84 **
-0.58
-1.68
0.54
0.61
0.62
0.49
-1.27
-0.62
1.70
2.63
-2.54
-2.72
-7.52
-8.46
-0.07
-0.09
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.06
-0.05
0.13
3.08
3.30
2.47 ** 17.68 *
-0.80 *
-80.85 -13.95
(5)
OLS
0.68
0.25
0.64
2.32
1.15
7.91
2.76
0.09
0.01
-0.00
0.08
-1.95
1.96
0.28
** 0.68
0.39
0.69
2.21
0.96
** 7.93
2.46
0.45
0.01
-0.00
0.06
** -2.00
** 2.11
-7.33
0.30
-1.91
37.28
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
When training is measured by the level of training expenditure per employee, the
results are much less significant in both economic and statistical terms. They also
suggest that training has a negative impact on profitability, but this finding is not
statistically significant.
69
Table 7.10: The Impact of Training Spending per Employee on Profit Margin
Dependent variable: the firm’s profit margin in the latest year
Training variable: training expenditure per employee
All
(1)
OLS
(2)
OLS
** 0.71
-0.12
0.69
1.52
0.24
** 7.29
1.56
-1.24
0.01
-0.00
0.11
* -1.66
** 2.19
-1.79
0.11
1.34
4.81
(3)
OLS
**
<100
(4)
OLS
0.71
-0.10
0.67
1.55
0.29
7.32
1.64
-1.23
0.01
-0.00
0.11
-1.63
2.19
-0.52
N
429
429
74
74
355
355
R-squared
0.53
0.53
0.63
0.66
0.51
0.51
*
**
1.87
0.85 **
2.15
0.65
-1.63
-3.34
2.71
-3.26
-6.15
-0.11
-0.00
0.15
-0.91
3.75
-16.95
1.53
43.49 **
>100
(6)
OLS
PRMRGN2
LAVEMP3A
LAGE
SICDUM2
SICDUM3
SICDUM4
SICDUM5
BUSPL
SALPC%
COMPS
LARGEST
WORK7
WORK8
LTRSPEMP
LTRSPEMP2
CONSTANT
**
0.86 **
1.00
1.14
-0.82
-2.66
2.93
-2.20
-4.35
-0.03
-0.00
0.20
-0.21
4.37 *
-0.82
(5)
OLS
0.68
-0.03
0.62
2.24
1.04
7.77
2.74
0.17
0.01
-0.00
0.08
-1.89
1.96
-0.44
** 0.68
-0.04
0.63
2.24
1.03
** 7.77
2.72
0.17
0.01
-0.00
0.07
* -1.90
** 1.97
-0.87
0.04
-1.07 ** 0.14
**
**
*
**
Since we find no evidence for endogenity, the findings presented above are
drawn from OLS regressions. The analysis of the effects on profitability of training
expenditures is shown in Table 7.11. This confirms the finding of an inconsistent
and weak impact of training on profitability in this sample.
70
Table 7.11: Effects of Training Expenditure: Change in Profit Margin over 2 years
Number of employees
50
50
50
50
500
500
500
500
Predicted change in
profit margin over
three years:
Quadratic model
Linear model
-2.0%
-3.2%
0.4%
-1.5%
3.1%
2.4%
2.9%
4.2%
3.3%
-4.6%
1.2%
-2.9%
0.8%
1.1%
0.6%
2.8%
Training expenditure
per firm:
£5,000
√
√
£10,000
√
√
£50,000
√
√
£100,000
√
√
£250,000
Predicted change in
profit margin over
three years:
Quadratic model
Linear model
2.7%
1.9%
0.9%
1.5%
0.0%
1.3%
-1.4%
0.6%
1.7%
1.1%
1.6%
0.9%
1.2%
0.8%
0.9%
0.4%
Training expenditure
per employee:
£50
£75
√
√
√
√
£100
√
√
£250
√
√
£500
71
Our final performance variable is the growth of labour productivity, where
productivity is measured by turnover per employee. We measure the change in
productivity by the change in the logarithm of productivity between the first and
the third of our years of observations.
The findings for this variable can be summarised succinctly since they provide no
support for the hypothesis that training can have a direct and immediate
beneficial impact on labour productivity. The quadratic model shows positive, but
insignificant effects of training on labour productivity, but the linear model shows
a weak negative relationship.
Table 7.12: The Impact of Training Spending per Employee on Productivity
Growth
Dependent variable: the change in the logarithm of labour productivity
Training variable: training expenditure per firm
All
(1)
OLS
LTURN3
0.06
TURNGRO
0.00
LAGE
0.05
SICDUM2
-0.08
SICDUM3
-0.14
SICDUM4
-0.03
SICDUM5
-0.09
BUSPL
-0.01
NEW
-0.03
WORK5
0.06
WORK6
0.09
WORK7
0.01
WORK8
0.01
LTRSPENDC -0.06
LTRSPENDC2
CONSTANT -0.51
N
604
R-squared
0.23
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
(2)
OLS
0.06
0.00
0.06
-0.08
-0.14
-0.03
-0.09
0.00
-0.03
0.06
0.09
0.00
0.01
-0.11
0.00
-0.28
604
0.23
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
<100
(3)
(4)
OLS
OLS
0.10
0.10
0.00 ** 0.00 **
0.06
0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.16
-0.16
-0.20
-0.19
-0.13
-0.13
0.01
-0.01
-0.14
-0.15
0.16
0.16
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.05
0.05
0.00
-1.18
-1.59
>100
(6)
IVR
** 0.05
* 0.00
** 0.04
** -0.05
** -0.09
0.05
** -0.10
0.04
-0.04
* 0.04
* 0.07
-0.02
0.04
** -0.30
0.01
-0.75 ** 0.87
(5)
OLS
0.06
0.00
0.05
-0.08
-0.14
0.02
-0.11
-0.01
-0.02
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.02
-0.05
103
103
501
455
0.42
0.42
0.21
0.25
72
*
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
Table 7.13: The Impact of Training Spending per Employee on Productivity
Growth
Dependent variable: the change in the logarithm of labour productivity
Training variable: training expenditure per employee
All
(1)
OLS
LTURN3
0.02
TURNGRO 0.00
LAGE
0.05
SICDUM2
-0.09
SICDUM3
-0.14
SICDUM4
-0.04
SICDUM5
-0.10
BUSPL
-0.03
NEW
-0.03
WORK5
0.06
WORK6
0.08
WORK7
0.00
WORK8
0.00
LTRSPEMP -0.04
LTRSPEMP2
CONSTANT -0.23
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
(2)
OLS
0.02
0.00
0.05
-0.09
-0.13
-0.04
-0.09
-0.04
-0.03
0.06
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.10
-0.01
-0.61
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
-1.28
<100
(4)
OLS
0.08 *
** 0.00 **
0.04
-0.08
-0.15
** -0.17
-0.09
-0.03
* -0.16
** 0.16 *
0.04
-0.02
-0.03
0.04
-0.01
-1.14
(3)
IVR
0.09
0.01
0.05
-0.10
-0.09
-0.32
-0.16
0.06
-0.20
0.29
-0.02
0.05
-0.04
-0.01
>100
(5)
(6)
OLS
OLS
0.04 * 0.04
0.00 ** 0.00
0.05 ** 0.05
-0.09 ** -0.09
-0.14 ** -0.13
-0.01
-0.01
-0.12 ** -0.11
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
0.05 * 0.05
0.08 * 0.08
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
-0.04
0.09
-0.01
-0.62 * -0.95
N
604
604
87
103
501
501
R-squared
0.21
0.22
0.47
0.43
0.19
0.20
*
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
**
Summary Conclusion
In conclusion, we find some limited evidence, in some size class estimations, for
the impact of training expenditures on firm performance from the direct
multivariate analysis presented in this chapter. In the majority of cases however
the effects are statistically and economically weak. This should not be too
surprising since the short run performance of firms is influenced by many
systematic and random factors and is notoriously difficult to predict. This makes it
problematic to identify the consequences of training amongst all these other
factors. It should also be noted that our measure of training is recorded at a
single moment of time at the end of our performance period, so that causation is
always more difficult to gauge. This problem can be tackled only by the creation
of panel data. This was, of course, understood at the outset of the project that
was concerned to establish an opening cross section of firms for potential future
investigation using panel estimation techniques.
73
It also should be noted that the richness of the data would permit further
experimentation with both estimation techniques and specifications. This would,
however, require more time than is available within the current project brief.
74
Chapter 8 The Case Studies
It was agreed to supplement the statistical analysis of the telephone survey
sample with a limited number of case studies. The purpose of this part of the
work was to gain a greater insight into what lay behind the answers to our
questions about the training activities of firms. It also had a particular focus of
examining whether firms trained on a permanent, or intermittent basis.
Sample Selection
This report is based on a study of a sample of 32 firms drawn from the CBR
surveys carried out in 1997 and 1999 using a panel of firms and covering a very
wide range of issues. This sample is divided into four groups:




those which the surveys recorded as having trained both in 1997 and in
1999;
those which did not train in either year;
those which trained in 1997 but not in 1999; and
those which did not train in 1997 but trained in 1999.
The sample was selected on the basis of answers to a question in the CBR
surveys that asked whether the firm provided formal training for any of its
employees in the year in question. In the 1999 survey a firms were also asked
whether they had or were seeking accreditation as Investors in People (IiP). The
answers to these questions are shown in the table below.
Table 8.1 Training and Accreditation for Investors in People
% of firms
All firms Manufacture Services
Micro
Training:
1997
57.8
61.2
52.7
35.6
1999
47.7
47.7
47.7
25.3
Small
Medium
73.5
62.8
86.5
86.4
Using IiP
12.6
13.1
12.0
2.5
18.3
35.0
No of firms
(1999)
1287
763
524
574
570
125
The overall picture is one of a decline in the proportion of firms training between
1997 and 1999. It is also very clear that larger businesses are far more likely to
be training and to be doing so on a continuous basis.
For the 32 case studies, firms were selected to provide examples of each of the
four training states. More were selected from the changing states so that it would
be possible to learn more about the process of starting to train or ceasing to train,
and thus unravel the reasons for training decisions. The sample is also stratified
75
by size into micro (1-9 employees), small (10-99 employees) and medium-sized
(100-499 employees) categories. (See Table 8.2).
Table 8.2 The Distribution of the Sample by Training State and Size Class
No training in 1997 or 1999.
Interviews
Size of firm 1-9 (micro)
2
Size of firm 10-99 (small)
2
Size of firm 100-499 (medium)
3
Total
7
Trained in 1997 and 1999
Size of firm 1-9 (micro)
Size of firm 10-99 (small)
Size of firm 100-499 (medium)
Interviews
2
2
3
Total
7
Did not train in 1997, trained in 1999
Size of firm 1-9 (micro)
Size of firm 10-99 (small)
Size of firm 100-499 (medium)
Interviews
4
2
3
Total
9
Trained in 1997, did not train in 1999
Size of firm 1-9 (micro)
Size of firm 10-99 (small)
Size of firm 100-499 (medium)
Interviews
3
3
3
Total
9
Definitions
In conducting the case studies, a deliberately open-ended approach to the
concept of training was chosen. Training was defined as “anything that may
have helped an individual to learn to do his or her work”. This is a more inclusive
definition than that asked for in the CBR Small and Medium-Sized Business
Surveys of 1997 and 1999, which asked the question “Is formal training provided
for any occupational groups?” The more inclusive definition was thought to be
likely to encourage people to talk freely about training and to allow us to identify
the full range of training activity.
76
Interview Method and Data Recording
The method used was to arrange by telephone for a face-to-face interview. The
interviews used a semi-structured questionnaire and were tape-recorded. The
interviews lasted on average thirty minutes. There is also a written record of each
interview in the form of notes. The tapes and notes have been condensed into a
pro-forma sheet for each case using a standard format and these are presented
in Appendix 4.
For 24 of the firms, an initial face-to-face interview was completed between July
and October 2001 and a follow-up interview was done by telephone in March and
April 2002. For the other 8, longer face-to-face interviews were carried out in
March and April 2002. There was only one refusal for the follow-up interview - a
company which had been taken over by another company, with the production
department being relocated to Lincoln and the design and sales department to a
village in the outskirts of Cambridge.
The firms were situated from Inverness in the North, to Oxford in the South, and
from Ipswich in the East, to Mold in the West.
Information Requested by the Aide-Memoire for the Face to Face Interviews
The interviewees were asked about their main industrial activity and the type of
company. This was followed by questions about the number of employees and
staff turnover. They were then asked if they train and what they understand by
training and its role in the context of their business. Questions about whether
they were accredited by, or in the process of implementing, Investors in People
were followed by a question about whether they use any of the following HRM
policies to improve their competitiveness: total quality management, quality
circles, job-rotation/multi-skilling and performance-related pay.
The next set of questions was about who was responsible for training and
whether they have a Business Plan, a Human Resources Plan and a Budget for
Training. They were also asked about how decisions about training provision
were taken.
Subsequently very exhaustive questions were asked about the type of courses
that were provided for new and existing employees. Whether training was
provided for managers was a further query. This section was concluded by
questions as to whether courses were more than just health and safety and other
legal requirements and whether they were merely to teach the employees to use
new machinery or new equipment.
There followed a section on reasons for training, or not training. A vital question
about the link between training and business performance is in this section. This
was followed by a very precise question relating to why they trained, or did not
77
train, in 1997 and 1999. Training and labour market conditions, the financial and
competitive position of the firm and the use of new technology were also asked
about. Skill levels within the firm were queried. Finally questions about
disincentives to training and assessment of training concluded the interviews.
Comparison of the Training States
No training in both 1997 and 1999
Firstly it is important to see if the case studies shed any light on why the
respondents to the CBR surveys said “no” to formal training in both 1997 and
1999. There were seven firms out of the thirty-two case studies that said “no” in
both years. One of these, a foundry, is a small firm which does not train at all.
They have trained staff who have been there for a very long time and if they need
to appoint new staff they can find skilled foundry men. Thus a double “no” reflects
the state of affairs exactly.
The two micro firms that said “no” to formal training in both years actually do
mainly on-the-job training all the time. In one case they also, as legally required,
do forklift truck training and health and safety training off the job. They did not
regard this as formal training provided by the firm.
Other comments by these firms highlighted the financial constraints to formal
training in both of these years. There was some aversion to “the training religion”,
a resistance to the IiP paperwork and nostalgia for “old-fashioned
apprenticeships”. Training also depended on whether there was a new member
of staff that required training – small firms and those with low staff turnover (like
family businesses) had less need to train.
The three medium-sized firms have different reasons for saying “no”. One firm of
consulting engineers said “no” twice because the financial partner and not the
partner responsible for HRM filled in the two CBR questionnaires! In fact this firm
does both on-the-job and off-the-job training as they have the continuing
professional requirements of the engineering institutions. This firm was therefore
not classified correctly. Another medium-sized firm said “no” in 1997 and 1999
because during these two years they did not have a training manager. Since that
time the appointment of a training manager has doubled their training facilities
and they now do on-the-job and off-the-job courses. There is no doubt that the
appointment of a specific person with responsibility for training issues is a key
first step.
The third medium-sized firm does mainly informal on-the-job “sitting with Nellie”
training although it is a medium-sized firm. This is why it said “no” to both years’
surveys. These firms were also concerned about the cost to them of training
employees who then leave to work elsewhere.
78
Of the seven non-training firms in this category, only three thought that training
was an advantage to their firm. One, the Managing Director of a small firm of
architects, said “the effect of training on the performance of the company is vital.
I.T training is fundamental.” The architects are trained to use the firm’s own
drawing system in computer-aided design. The Managing Director of another
medium-sized firm, which makes blankets, commented that “training is absolutely
essential to productivity-indeed to the survival of the firm.” The third is a mediumsized engineering firm and their Managing Director says that “training is important
to their competitive position and vis-à-vis their clients.” These firms either used
informal training or the recruitment of trained staff to fulfil their needs.
The other non-trainers in both years did not think that training was a good thing,
or were ambivalent about training. One small firm carried out no training at all.
They regarded “Training as teaching people to do a job” In another medium-sized
firm the Personnel Director did not think that “training affects the bottom line.”
They assemble high technology connections and cable assemblies for the
professional electronics industry. They say they are never asked about training
when their suppliers do an audit. They see training as having three layers:
1. Essential training to do the job - e.g. health and safety, and knowledge of
the job such as forklift truck training, first aid and I.T.
2. Luxury training - to provide training as an incentive.
3. To promote work for younger people - 16 year-old, new apprenticeships,
but they often leave when trained to become plumbers.
They always do fundamental training but if the company is doing less well they
cut down on “luxuries”.
The other two firms were contradictory in what they said. One is a micro
company specialising in making silica gel products. They said “training is
necessary for the performance of their company”; and then “training is not really
important as the work is so specific and simple”. The General Manager of the
other ambivalent firm, which produces detergents for cleaning, is cynical about
training- he thinks it is “jobs for the boys”. On the other hand he is quite
ambivalent and says that “good training improves productivity.”
Trained in 1997 and 1999
Those firms that trained in both 1997 and 1999 tended to display very positive
attitudes to training – “training is essential”, “need to keep pace with change”,
“safety more important now”, “training makes jobs more satisfying”, “training
gives a competitive edge”. The HR Manager of a medium-sized firm which
manufactures gravure printing cylinders says what she understands by training is
“making the employers aware of the job, the company policies and health and
safety issues as a basic, and improving the skills base.” They train to ensure that
operations are carried out properly. Also they train for employee satisfaction. She
79
thinks that training is related to quality management as does the Manager of a
small firm that manufactures electronic power converters. He says that “quality is
fundamental to the productivity of the firm and therefore training is”. They also
have the HR Manager responsible for quality.
The Managing Director of a medium-sized firm of marine and industrial electrical
engineers says that “training really begins after people do HNCs and the
government has to recognise the importance of managerial training”. They think
that training is definitely linked to performance and that they are better off
training.
A medium-sized company, which specialises in dealing with property, trains
because high professional standards affect a firm’s reputation. The HR Manager
thinks that training makes people more productive. They train because it is
important to their competitive position and they try to get ahead of their
competitors.
There were also some negative attitudes about training even amongst these
persistent trainers with a preference for the old apprenticeships, a concern that
external funding for training had dried up and the worry that employees might be
lost to competitors having trained them. Investors in People also did not get a
universally good response because it was felt to involve too much bureaucracy
and led to a rise in employees’ expectations to an unsustainable level. Several
firms made the point that training expenditure was dependent upon performance
– “when budgets are tight, training is the first thing to go”.
The firms found it difficult to establish the benefits of training. The Financial
Director of a small firm that manufactures display and industrial turntables says
that it is difficult to make an evaluation of the effect of training on performance in
monetary terms, or even in visible benefits. He is not sure about the impact on
profitability. He says that training is really a question of keeping pace with
change- a comment which was reiterated by the Managing Director of another
small company which deals with speciality chemicals. He says that he thinks that
training is important because we live in a world that is complex and changing
quickly and it is important that people are updated so that they can do their job
effectively. The Chief Executive of an enterprise agency (small) says of training“sometimes the effect of training on business performance is measurable.
Sometimes you find that you have a more motivated member of staff - it may not
always improve productivity but it improves motivation. On the whole you are
better off training rather than worse off.”
80
The Transitional States
Did not train in 1997, trained in 1999
Three of the four micro-firms said “no” in 1997 and “yes” in 1999 because they
had no young trainees to train in 1997, but they had started training new ones by
1999. They mainly did on-the-job training with some off-the-job training for the
young trainees. They are representative of many SMEs that train only when the
need arises. The fourth micro firm only consisted of two people in 1997 which is
why no training was required then. Technology is important to them as they are a
design company and a print-broker. They got financial help from Business Links
and the Chamber of Commerce to do Investors in People and now do both onthe-job and off-the-job training.
There were two small firms that said “no” to formal training in 1997 and “yes” to
training in 1999. The first one got new computer systems and new staff in 1999
and therefore needed to train, whereas there was no need in 1997. The other did
not train in 1997 because they were not drawing any grants for training then, nor
did they have anyone requiring training. They only do on-the-job training now.
There were three medium-sized firms in this category. One, in the declining
clothing industry mainly did on-the-job training. Despite saying they did not train
formally in 1997, they were providing informal on-the-job training. The other two
medium-sized firms have become more interested in training as the company
grew and new training requirements emerged as a consequence of both the new
employees and the more formal organisation of the firm.
In a number of cases the existence of a grant towards the cost of training was
said to have been an important stimulus. This was in part due to the contribution
towards the cost of training, but it also caused firms to think about training who
might otherwise have ignored their training needs.
A simple summary is that training depends on need amongst these firms. There
is no notion of continuous staff development, but training is required to meet new
technology, new external requirements, or when new staff are appointed. Most of
these firms did not have any of these requirements in 1997, but did in 1999.
However, there are some examples of a changing attitude, brought partly by new
management and partly by the growing complexity of the business environment
and legislation, where training has been adopted on a more permanent basis.
Despite not being continuous trainers this group were largely positive about
training, except for the Managing Director of a micro-firm that specialises in
commercial industrial warehousing. He said that training is not important to their
competitive position and “is a drain on resources”. The Director of a micro-firm
specialising in the manufacturing of air-conditioning equipment thinks they are
better off training because it makes the employees more capable of carrying out
81
complex tasks. However, he thinks that training improves productivity to a
degree, but it is something they cannot really measure. He thinks that the day
release courses benefit the firm and also the employees. The work at their firm is
too simple for formal apprenticeships. The Managing Director of another microfirm specialising in general engineering amongst other things remarked that “they
have no choice but to train people because next month there may not be any
work.” He says that training is really alerting them to problems.
The Quality Manager of a medium-sized firm, property consultants on the
construction side, initially says that “everything comes down to training” He goes
on to say more ambivalently “people are better off being trained in terms of the
individual but the firm loses time and it costs money”. He also says that some
people avoid training as middle management have to earn fees for a certain
amount of their time. The Managing Director of a micro-firm, which is a design
company and a print broker, and is committed to training and very enthusiastic
about it, says that they “train to develop the business and also they find that it
increases the commitment of staff”.
The Chairman of a small firm, a foundry, and therefore based on a craft, says
“training is vital for the performance of the firm”. He says that you have to train
properly or you lose a lot of money. The Managing Director of a medium-sized
firm which produces clothes remarks that “training is to everyone’s advantage - to
the individual’s and also to the firm’s”. The Training Officer of a medium-sized
transport planning consultancy says that it is necessary to individuals and to the
business to develop people. “Training also acts as an incentive” so that they can
keep people, as they are interested in their development. She goes on to say that
“proving that training is beneficial is the main problem”.
Trained in 1997, did not train in 1999
There are three micro firms in this category, one of which is a rapidly growing firm
producing Venetian blinds. The two partners are responsible for training which is
mainly on-the-job training “sitting with Nellie” training. The “office girls” have offthe-job I.T. training with Business Link. Training and quality are very important to
them. The 1999 “no” to formal training was just a temporary interruption in their
training.
Another is a firm of thermal engineers who line furnaces, boilers, kilns and
heaters. They were all fully trained in 1999 and did not need to train that year.
This form of training is intermittent and they needed to train again in mechanical
handling and health and safety in 2000. They train on-the-job and off-the-job for
IT, health and safety and mechanical equipment training.
The third micro-firm is craft-based. Their training is on-the-job as the employees
work “sitting with Nellie”. They had no new equipment and no new staff in 1999
and therefore they did not train.
82
There were three small firms that said “yes” to training in 1997 and “no” to
training in 1999. One of these firms builds specialised high temperature furnaces.
They had less training than usual in 1999 because they were doing a lot of work
in 1997 to bring the cremators up to environmental standards. Their training
peaked in 1997 and went down after that. They do both on-the-job and off-the-job
training.
Another small firm manufactures electronic power converters. There has been no
change in training policy despite the fact that the answer to the questionnaires
said that they trained in 1997 did not train in 1999. They now think that they
trained in both years and do not know why they gave the answer they did in
1999. They do both on-the-job and off-the-job training.
The third small firm deals with print and design. They had no young ones to train
in 1999 but one in 1997. For preference they employ people who are already
trained. They do both on-the-job and off-the-job training.
In summary, the smaller firms’ responses are similar to those for the previous
group. They will tend to train when necessary and the 1997 survey caught them
when they did have a training need, but they did not need to train in 1999.
Training depended upon whether new employees, new work methods, or new
legislation required it.
There are three medium-sized firms which said “yes” in 1997 and “no” in 1999.
The first is a baker and confectioner – a craft-based firm. They are very
committed to training despite saying that they did not train in 1999. That was a
temporary halt to formal training. Each employee spends two to three years
learning the work of all departments. They train both on- and off-the-job.
The second medium-sized firm is a packing and distribution company. They said
that it was unusual that they did not train in 1999. They do both on-the-job and
off-the-job training. In the case of this firm and the previous one, it was difficult to
assess whether it was inconsistency in their answers or a lower degree of
training activity that had caused the negative response in 1999.
The third medium-sized firm trained in 1997 but did not train in 1999 because
they took over another firm with a new factory and concentrated that year on
marrying the two companies, with training put to one side. They have mainly
“sitting with Nellie” on the job courses for existing employees and off-the-job
courses for supervisors and management.
More interestingly, all of these firms that had given up training in 1999 made
positive remarks about training. The Partner in a micro firm, which makes
venetian blinds and is growing fast, perceives training as follows: “Our firm
understands by training, standing with them and showing them our methods of
83
working, the partners show them how to do it so that there is no dilution of our
methods”. They are looking for quality and therefore training affects the
performance of the firm. They want to increase to fifty employees in two years
therefore staff and training are important. They are leaders of a cottage industry.
The Managing Director of another craft-based micro-firm, which makes rocking
horses and other toys, says that “he trains because it is a specialised business.”
Training is carried out as the employees work - if there is a problem carrying out
the work or if there is a new machine in the workshop they train. This is an
example of the hand to mouth informal training which is carried out typically in
micro-firms.
The Works and Cremator Division Director of a small firm which designs and
builds specialised high temperature furnaces says “training is essential to the
performance of the company. Each job the company does is very different from
the last so they are on a continuous learning curve.” The Managing Director of a
small firm that manufactures electronic power converters says “training is
important to our competitive position in the sense that the workforce know what
they are doing and are effective. Quality is fundamental to the productivity of the
firm and therefore training is.” Several firms have linked training to quality and
have said how important this link is.
“We train according to need. For preference we employ the ready-trained,” says
the Managing Director of a small firm that deals in print and design. The retired
Director of a bakery, another craft industry, is very positive about training.
Training for him is “learning the job you are employed to do. If you don’t train you
have nothing for the future. This is a craft industry and if you want to move
forward you have to train.” This is a reiteration of what other senior executives of
other craft industries have said. This all relates to quality.
The Personnel Manager of a medium-sized packing and distribution company
says that they use a lot of new technology and therefore training is necessary.
They also train existing staff when there is a shortage of trained labour and
promote them. The Operations Manager of another medium-sized firm that
manufactures cleaning products says that they train because it helps the
employees to get working quicker and more safely. He thinks that training does
have an effect on performance and that they are better off training.
To sum up, we find that several of the case study firms that said that they were
not providing formal training were carrying out informal training. Changes
between training states were generally a response to training needs rather than a
changed attitude to training provision. We now turn to the comparisons that can
be made between the different size groups on the basis of the case studies.
84
Training and Firm Size
Formality and firm size
These case studies demonstrate that training is more informal in micro-firms and
small firms, “Training provision in small firms is frequently much less formal, and
is characterised by an informal imparting or conveying of work skills or
knowledge from one employee to another.” (Westhead, P. and Storey, D.J.
(1997) Training Provision and the Development of Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises. A Research Report. DfEE, H.M.S.O.)
In these firms on-the-job training is the norm. There are some exceptions to this,
and they do formal off-the-job training. These tend to be those small firms which
use a considerable amount of technology in their work (e.g. a design company
and print broker), those which have professional employees who are legally
bound to participate in continuous professional development (e.g. a firm
specialising in architecture), and those which have rigorous Health and Safety
requirements on account of having dangerous processes (e.g. a firm which
constructs furnaces).
As the firms grow, there is a tendency for training to become more formal with
more off-the-job training. When employees number about 150 plus – i.e. the
medium-sized firms – the firms tend to acquire human resource managers; they
use more human resource management policies, such as the ones that were
asked about; Total Quality management; Quality Circles; Job-rotation/Multiskilling; and Performance-related pay, and there is on average more off-the-job
formal training. There are, of course, exceptions to this. Some medium-sized
family firms still retain family members as their Human Resources Managers, as
they see HRM as a very important function which keeps them in touch with the
work-force.
On-the-job training
Some of the micro firms are not ambitious. They have a niche market, the skills
necessary for carrying out the work are not demanding and they have a stable
workforce. Such training as they do is largely on the job. A micro-firm is an
example of this type of firm. They produce drying agents (silica gel) products.
Their ambition is just to pass a viable business onto their son and they want to
remain as they are with three family members out of seven employees. Another
micro firm (which produces commercial industrial warehousing) has a similar
approach with five full-time employees, three of whom are family members. The
Managing Director himself trains new employees mainly on the job. They
produce work while the training is being carried out and therefore they never stop
producing.
85
On the other hand there is also one medium-sized firm that largely did on-the-job
training although it had an HR Manager. Another medium-sized firm (also in the
textile industry, which is in decline in the U.K.) has an HR Manager. They also
mainly do on-the-job training. It seems that when firms struggle to survive they
cut back on off-the-job training and concentrate on on-the-job training. Such firms
are at variance with the hypothesis that medium-sized firms with HR Managers
do more formal and off-the-job training.
Training and Affordability
Those firms which are not thriving and performing well tend to concentrate on onthe-job, informal training, whether they are micro, small, or medium-sized as they
have neither the financial resources nor, can they above all lose the time from the
process of production to train off the job or formally. On the other hand, those
firms of whatever size which thrive and are performing well (e.g. those which are
involved with new technology and with continuous professional development) can
afford the time and money to train formally and off-the-job.
Sometimes firms in a precarious state of survival, like the micro firm which
specialises in general engineering, resort to formal off-the-job training in a
desperate attempt to survive. This firm’s Managing Director paid a consultant
£1000 to give formal off-the-job training to his one full-time employee and two
part-time employees in order to teach them how to make and sell remanufactured
ink and laser-jet toners. Thus the threat of failure can make firms behave
differently from what one would expect from the hypothesis.
Human Resource Managers
On reading the following section the reader must bear in mind that the numbers
involved are very small and this affects how meaningful they are. None of the
micro-firms had Human Resource managers - in the main they used their
managing directors to organise training. The only small firm that did absolutely no
training had nobody to organise training. Of the small firms, which numbered
nine, five had no Human Resource Manager; one had a Director who was
responsible for Personnel and the other had his son, the Managing Director, as
head of Human Resource Management and himself, the father, the Chairman, as
head of training. The ninth had been taken over and did not respond to the
second set of questions.
Of the twelve medium-sized firms eight had a Human Resource Manager and
one had just had an HR Manager resign in March 2002. Two others had
Managing Directors, who were members of the families which own the firms,
responsible for HRM. Also, two of the eight HR Managers were relatives of the
managing directors. Thus four firms in all thought that Human Resource
Management was so important that it must be kept within the family. In all, three
quarters of the medium-sized firms had HR Managers and the others had family
86
members or partners of the firm acting as such. This is in keeping with the
hypothesis that as firms grow and become medium-sized they acquire Human
Resource Managers.
The larger the firms were, the more likely they were to carry out the four types of
HR practices which were total quality management, quality circles, jobrotation/multi-skilling and performance-related pay. The number of employees in
the firm is significantly correlated with the number of HRM policies. This size
effect needs to be taken account of when assessing the impact of training
support on performance.
In conclusion, the vast majority of the firms think that training is very important
and worthwhile. Many also think that training affects the performance of the firm,
but it is also the case that none of the firms carried out any formal analysis of the
benefits of training to their business.
On the other hand, training is something that is generally carried out on a needs
basis amongst smaller businesses and the need depends on whether technology
or legislation have changed, or whether new, unqualified staff have been recently
appointed.
87
Chapter 9
Summary Conclusions
The Survey Process and Outcome
The sampling frame chosen for the survey was the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B)
database.
The target achieved sample size was 2,500 firms. This broad sectoral split
reflected the need to have sector samples of sufficient size to permit statistical
analysis at the sector level. Manufacturing was therefore split into high tech and
other manufacturing. In the services sectors it was agreed to cover distribution
and hotels, financial services and business services.
A key purpose of the survey was that the survey instrument should be drawn up
specifically for the purpose of evaluating the relationship between training and
performance. The performance measures it was agreed to include were
employment growth, turnover growth and profitability.
In developing the survey instrument we drew upon the existing literature surveys
contained in our earlier work for the DfES. We also liaised with the DfES steering
group on the recent experience of the DfES project on Learning and Training at
Work which explored a number of these and related issues.
Following an extended pilot exercise, the survey was carried out over the
telephone by IFF on behalf of the CBR. The speed and timeliness of the
telephone method led to the decision to go ahead with the telephone survey
without a data sheet but with the option of potential transfer from one interviewee
to another. After the completion of the full survey we retrieved additional
performance data from the FAME financial database for earlier years.
Sample Characteristics
This chapter examines the characteristics of our sample. We pay particular
attention to the impact of size and sector on these characteristics emphasising
the full range of measures of training activity available.
When firms are asked whether they do on- or off-the-job training we find that 79%
of firms answered yes to these questions (and 92% did either on or off-the-job
training or both). It can also be seen that firms which have above 100 employees
do not differ much in the proportion which train, but small firms have a much
lower training propensity.
The expenditure on training per employee does not differ that much across size
classes and does not increase monotonically with size. The proportion of firms
88
spending more than £100 per employee on training is about 60% and we term
this group of firms the high intensity trainers.
The incidence of training across sectors does not differ much, but financial and
business services spend more per employee. The distribution and hotels sector
comes lowest in terms of each measure.
Business planning is related to size, but the marked increase in its incidence
occurs when moving from micro to small and from small to medium. Beyond the
firm size of 100 employees there is relatively less increase in planning activity as
we consider larger firms.
Planning is more prevalent amongst business service firms and least within
distribution and hotels. There is little difference between hi-tech and conventional
manufacturing.
The percentage of firms with provision of an employee relations director or a
senior manager for training increases with firm size. The size of the firm has an
even more dominant effect on the provision of training facilities and staff.
There is very little variation across the sectors in the provision of training facilities
and staff. It would appear that such facilities depend upon the size of the firm, but
not the sector in which it operates.
In general we find the use of particular labour management techniques to be size
related. Only 8% of firms in the 5-9 employees size group have adopted IiP, but
this rises to over 50% of the firms in the largest size group. IiP is intimately
associated with both the development of effective training programmes and
appropriate methods of planning and recording this activity.
It is to be expected that some of these techniques are more appropriate to certain
sectors than to others. Thus, manufacturing firms, particularly hi-tech, are more
likely to use TQM, quality circles and job rotation. On the other hand these
techniques are used in each sector to some degree and PRP is more commonly
used by service sector firms.
About one-quarter of our sample are not independent, but are part of a larger
group. We also find that they are more likely to be found amongst the larger size
groups. We can see that even within size groups, firms which are not
independent (but part of a larger group) are significantly more likely to plan,
spend on training and use more sophisticated labour management techniques.
When labour cost is measured as a percentage of turnover we find little relation
between this ratio and firm size. Labour costs typically represent about one
quarter of turnover, but this ratio is highest in business and financial services.
89
We find that the largest customer represents over 25% of sales for about one
quarter of the firms and that the top five customers account for over 50% of sales
for about one third of the sample firms. Interestingly, there is little consistent
variation across the size categories in this customer dependence. This remains
the case even when we consider the size categories within the sectors.
The final measure in this section measures innovation by the proportion of sales
represented by new products. This shows an inconsistent pattern across the size
groups.
In contrast, these measures show marked differences across the sectors. Hi-tech
has the greatest dependence on a few customers, revealing again the
importance of this sector’s linkages with larger businesses. As we might expect,
financial services and distribution etc have the broadest customer base. The
median number of serious competitors shows little variation across sectors. Our
measure of innovativeness reveals the hi-tech sector as highest and the service
sectors as lowest.
It is likely that the amount of training a firm is undertaking is related to its
ambitions for future growth and so we also asked firms about their growth
ambitions. Most firms are seeking to grow moderately over the next five years.
The smallest firms are the least ambitious and the largest firms in the sample
have most ambitious plans.
We also find significant differences in growth ambitions across the sectors.
Business services exhibit the highest growth ambitions, whilst distribution and
hotels have the lowest proportion of firms that seek to grow substantially.
Finally, before turning to examine training provision in greater depth, we report on
the skill categories in which firms are experiencing recruitment difficulties. Larger
firms have greater recruitment problems than smaller firms. Recruitment
problems are greatest for professionals, technical and scientific staff and craft
and skilled operatives.
In general, high tech manufacturing firms have the greatest recruitment
difficulties and financial service firms have the lowest problems, but there are
strong differences across the various categories of employment. High tech
manufacturing has its greatest difficulties amongst technical and scientific staff
whilst conventional manufacturing faces its most significant problems with craft
and skilled operatives. The financial services sector has greatest recruitment
problems amongst clerical and secretarial staff, but it is manual staff for hotels
and professional staff for business services where the greatest problems lie.
90
Training Activity
This chapter follows our description of the key characteristics if the sample and
their relation to firm size and sector by providing more detailed information about
the firms’ training activities.
We find much lower level of off-the-job training provision in firms with less than
100 employees, particularly those with fewer than 10 employees. We also find
that, of the 79% of firms which did provide some off-the-job training, 83%
provided such training for technical and scientific employees whilst only 44%
provided it for manual employees. The findings for on-the-job training are very
similar to this.
Computing skills, health and safety, new equipment and induction are the most
commonly used types of off-the-job training provided to non-managers. There are
significant differences across the size groups.
For all firms which provided off-the-job training for managers, we find that
teamworking, supervisory, communications and health and safety are the most
commonly provided training areas – all are used by above 70% of our trainers.
The least common are innovation management, production management and
stress management.
Turning now to the size groupings, we observe much lower provision amongst
smaller firms. This is in part due to a lower need for induction, teamworking,
production management and supervisory training with small workforces and less
complex processes.
The median number of days of off-the-job training provided to management in the
last year was five for the smallest size groups and four for the others, whilst offthe-job management training ranged from seven days for the smallest to five
days for the largest size group. The number of days of training of other
employees showed a very similar pattern and level with the medians ranging
from five days to three days for off-the-job and from seven days to 4 days for onthe-job across the size groups.
There has been little change in the extent of training activity compared with three
years earlier. On the other hand, the proportion indicating some increase is very
much higher than the proportion indicating a decline in activity.
The firms were asked to assess their own training outcomes by indicating how
satisfied they were that it had met its objectives. The majority was largely
satisfied. There is no consistent pattern of variation in these responses across
the size groups.
91
The Comparison of High and Low Intensity Trainers
The findings here reveal that there are marked size effects in the provision of
training. The contrast is particularly strong when comparing those above and
below 100 employees. The following results are presented for all firms and for
these two size groups.
We have also shown that most firms in the sample say that they have engaged in
either on- or off-the job training. For this reason we have calculated the
expenditure on training per employee and divided the sample by this measure.
Firms which have expenditure per employee of £100 or more are described
below as having high training intensity (and those with lower levels of expenditure
per employee are called low training intensity). These will be called trainers and
non-trainers in what follows.
Trainers show a much higher propensity to engage in planning than non-trainers
and this is found to be the case (and statistically significant) even within our size
classes. Larger firms are far more likely to have senior management with training
responsibilities and training facilities. Not surprisingly, within size groups, a higher
proportion of trainers have training staff and facilities.
We confirm our previous finding that training is intimately associated with the
adoption of other management processes. Whilst firm size is an important
determinant of the likelihood of using these methods, trainers are more likely to
be using them.
We find that smaller firms are more likely to complain about competition from
other employers and that this is significantly greater for trainers in this size group.
High intensity trainers in both groups give greater prominence to the shortage of
suitably qualified applicants as a cause of recruitment difficulty. The low intensity
trainers give greater prominence to pay levels as a cause of recruitment
difficulties.
Larger firms are more likely to take positive actions to correct the recruitment
problems, but high intensity trainers are also more responsive than low intensity
trainers within each size group. For example, although it was the low intensity
trainers who scored the problem of low pay more highly, they are significantly
less likely to have raised wages and salaries in response to the problem.
The high intensity trainers are significantly more active in their response than
non-trainers in each of the response categories and are much more likely to have
increased their training programmes as a result of the recruitment difficulties.
Firms were asked about whether there had been significant changes in their work
practices, products, or organisation in the last three years. A higher proportion of
larger firms and a higher proportion of trainers had experienced these changes.
92
So we can conclude that trainers are more active in terms of most forms of
management activity in general than are non-trainers.
Before turning to analyse the relationship between training and performance we
can look at the association of training with innovation activity and growth
objectives. In terms of both of these measures larger firms show greater activity.
But, Table 5.7 below also examines this within the two size groups. It shows that
firms with a high training intensity have significantly greater growth ambitions and
higher innovation activity in each size group.
Training and Performance
Firms were asked to evaluate the impact of their training over the past three
years in terms of turnover, employment, labour productivity and profitability.
About half of our sample felt that training had increased turnover and profit
margin. Almost three-quarters indicated that training had improved labour
productivity. These are very positive attitudes towards training outcomes, but we
find significantly less positive attitudes to training outcomes amongst the smallest
size groups.
The next stage of evaluation is to use firm’s own assessment of their current
performance relative to their peers. In general about half of the firms tend to
assess themselves as above average in terms of financial performance and
labour productivity. The comparison of the trainers and non-trainers yields mixed
results. Amongst the smaller size group a higher proportion of trainers evaluate
their financial performance and product quality to be much better; but nontrainers have similar judgements of their performance in terms of labour
productivity and labour costs. Amongst the larger size groups there is little
difference between the evaluations of trainers and non-trainers.
Our firms suggested that employment growth was not much affected by training.
When we examine their employment growth experience we find that trainers had
a higher proportion of fast growers than non-trainers, but there was little
difference in the larger size group. This finding confirms the firms’ own
assessment of the impact of training.
On the other hand, that trainers do have a higher proportion of firms in the fast
growth category (more than 40% over the past three years) than non-trainers; but
this relationship is found only in the group of firms with less than 100 employees.
We found no significant differences in the change in profit margins between high
and low intensity trainers.
We also compared the median values of these performance variables across size
and training intensity groups. Amongst the larger firms, whilst higher training
intensity is associated with somewhat higher median profit margins, the group
has lower turnover growth and much lower employment growth.
93
On the other hand the picture is much brighter for training amongst the less than
100 employees group. Here we can see very much higher profitability and better
growth performance in terms of both turnover and employment.
Multivariate Analysis of the Training Model
The key findings of our multivariate analysis of the determinants and
performance impacts of training expenditure per firm and per employee are as
follows:
Determinants:
The model of the determinants of training provision provides a very good
explanation of training spending by firms. We find that employment size is a
positive determinant of training spend. We also find that the length of time taken
to train an employee, the growth ambitions of the firm and difficulties in recruiting
managers and senior administrators are also positively linked to training
expenditure.
The recent introduction of initiatives to involve employees in work design and
practices is associated with higher training spending. We also find that the use of
more sophisticated management tools such as Total Quality Management and
job rotation is also positively related to higher spending. Finally, all other things
being equal, a firm that is part of a larger group is likely to be spending more on
training.
The findings of our determinants analysis for firms with 100 employees or more
are very much in line with those for the determinants of total training expenditures
by all the firms in the sample. For the smaller size group, with less than 100
employees, the existence of a written training plan, and a director responsible for
employees are both important positive determinants of training expenditure per
employee.
The analysis of the predicted quantitative impact of these variables on training
spending per firm and per employee reveals that these factors have a material
effect on the level of training expenditures.
Performance Impacts:
The analysis of performance effects of training intensity and shows that
employment growth is positively affected by training spend per firm. There is also
some evidence that there are diminishing returns to training spending. However,
in terms of quantitative ‘economic’ significance we find a very mixed and weak
impact of training spending on employment growth.
94
The results for turnover growth are qualitatively very similar to those for
employment growth, with a positive impact for training spend per firm. There are
diminishing returns to the impact of spending per firm on turnover growth,
although this effect is apparent only for the smaller firms in the sample. The level
of training expenditure per employee appears to be largely irrelevant for turnover
growth.
Training expenditure per firm generally has a positive impact on the change in
the profit margin and the impact is greater amongst the smaller firms in the
sample. When training is measured by the level of training expenditure per
employee, the impact on profit margins is much less significant in both economic
and statistical terms.
There is no relationship between productivity growth and training intensity, either
measured as expenditure per firm, or per employee. This may reflect both
weaknesses in the measurement of labour productivity available to us as well as
the impact of idiosyncratic factors on labour productivity movements over time.
95
Appendix 1
Screener and Main Questionnaire
i
Benefits of Training
Screening Sheet
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
J3307
April 2001
Office Use only:
SERIAL
(101)
(104)
CARD
REF NO
(105)
(106)
REGION
(110)
Address Label or Written Details
(111)
(112)
(113)
FINAL OUTCOME (CODE ONE ONLY)
(114-115)
Respondent interviewed .......................
Breakdown during interview ...................
01
02
Out of quota (S16/17 or 18) ...................
Non qualifier (No employees at S16/17)
03
04
Refusal: (SPECIFY) ...............................
Not available in deadline ........................
Referred to other address / telephone number
No contact with resp after 5 tries ...........
Unobtainable / dead line / fax number ...
Company closed down ..........................
Respondent moved / no longer at address
Wrong number .......................................
Other (DESCRIBE) ................................
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
00
Contact Record - Please complete for every contact, however short
No
Date
Time
Spoke to
Outcomes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Please use:
NDC = No Direct Contact
DC = Direct Contact
NR = No Reply
Interviewer:
Print Name
C/B = Call Back
Office Use Only
Coded by:
Res / Field edit by:
Date:
QC by:
ii
Eng = Engaged
Date
ASK TELEPHONIST
Can I just check, is that ______(COMPANY)?
(
)
Yes
1
GO TO S3
No
2
ASK S2
IF COMPANY NAME DIFFERENT
What is the correct company name? WRITE IN
COMPANY NAME
May I please speak to….
SMALL ORGANISATIONS (5-24 EMPLOYEES) ….the Owner or Managing Director?
OR
LARGER ORGANISATIONS (25 OR MORE EMPLOYEES) ….the Personnel or Training Director or
Manager / the Director or Senior Manager here who is responsible for training at the company?
(
)
Put through
1
GO TO S7
Person based elsewhere
2
ASK S4
No such person
3
GO TO S5
Refused to put through
4
CLOSE (OUTCOME 10)
Call back later
5
MAKE APPOINTMENT
ASK S4 IF PERSON BASED ELSEWHERE AT S3
Can you give me the details of the person I need to speak to?
RECORD DETAILS : WRITE IN NAME, JOB TITLE, COMPANY NAME, PHONE NUMBER THEN CLOSE
(OUTCOME 12)
CLOSE
(OUTCOME 12)
iii
ASK S5 IF NO SUCH PERSON AT S3
May I speak to the most senior person here please? Can I check his/ her name?
WRITE IN NAME
Can I check his/her job title?
(
)
Owner / Chairman / MD / Partner
1
Director / Manager of Personnel / Human Resources /
2
Recruitment / Employee Relations
Training Director / Manager
3
General / Site / Factory / Works Director / Manager
4
Administration / Office Director / Manager
5
Finance Director / Manager / Accountant / Company
6
Secretary
Other Departmental Director / Manager
7
Senior Secretary / Secretary
8
Other (WRITE IN)............................................................
0
ASK ALL
My name is _____ of IFF Research Ltd. We are conducting a major study along with Cambridge University for the
Department for Education and Employment about the training practices of employers.
Participation is entirely voluntary. Results will be entirely confidential and no responses will be attributed to
any individual or company. Results will be reported to the Department for Education and Employment on
an aggregated basis only. The interview will take no more than 20 minutes.
IF NECESSARY, ADD:

Even if you do not carry out any training, we are still interested in talking to you
 If you require further information or wish to check the validity of this study, please contact either Mark
Winterbotham at IFF on 020 7837 6363, or Rob Hardcastle at the DfEE on 0114 259 3417
 A summary of the results of this survey will be posted on the DfEE website (www.dfee.gov.uk) on
completion of the project.
Can I just check that you are the best person for me to talk to about your company's training?
(
)
Respondent OK and willing to be interviewed
1
GO TO S9
Respondent OK but call back later
2
MAKE APPOINTMENT
Respondent OK but refuses to be interviewed
3
CLOSE (OUTCOME 10)
Someone else at establishment
4
........................................................................................ N
AME ................................................................................
........................................................................................ J
OB TITLE ........................................................................
iv
TRANSFER
REINTRODUCE
AND
ASK ALL QUALIFYING SO FAR
Firstly, can I check how many employees - full and part time - do you employ in the UK in the company as a
whole?
RECORD ABSOLUTE NUMBER
(
)
1-4
1
5 - 2500
2
More than 2500
3
Don't know / refused
X
CLOSE (OUTCOME 04)
CONTINUE WITH S11 IF
STILL IN QUOTA
CLOSE (OUTCOME 04)
ASK S10
IF DON'T KNOW / REFUSED AT S9
Can you tell me which of these bands best represents the number of employees you employ in the UK?
READ OUT
(
)
4 or less
1
CLOSE (OUTCOME 04)
5-9
2
10 - 99
3
100 - 199
4
200 - 499
5
500 - 999
6
1,000 - 2,500
7
More than 2,500
8
CLOSE (OUTCOME 04)
Don't know / refused
X
CLOSE (OUTCOME 00)
CONTINUE IF STILL IN
QUOTA
What is the main business activity of the company? Precisely what is made, sold or provided?
WRITE IN AND CODE BELOW. PROBE FOR FULL DETAILS. DO NOT ACCEPT ANSWERS SUCH AS
"ENGINEERING"
Add descriptions:
Hitec Manufacturing (where the product being manufactured
is hitec eg office machinery, computers, electrical or
1
electronic equipment, TVs, industrial process equipment,
medical equipment, cars, aircraft
Other manufacturing (food and drink, textiles, wood products,
2
printing, chemicals)
Retail, distribution and hotels (retail, wholesale, hotels, pubs,
3
restaurants, take-aways etc)
Financial services (banking, insurance etc)
4
Business services (telecoms, advertising, consultancy, legal,
5
recruitment agencies, photographers)
None of the above
6
v
(
)
CONTINUE IF IN QUOTA
CLOSE
Can I just check is this the headquarters of an organisation with more than one site, the only site of your
organisation in the UK, or neither.
HQ of the organisation where
1
more than one site
Only site
2
Neither
ASK S13
3
And are you independent, ie not part of a larger organisation?
(
)
Independent
1
GO TO MAIN QUESTIONNAIE
Not independent
2
ASK S13OTH
Don't know
3
GO TO MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE
S13oth) Why do you say that?
PROBE FULLY- IN WHAT SENSE ARE YOU NOT INDEPENDENT?
DON’T KNOW – Y
NOW GO TO MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE IF IN QUOTA (IF NOT, CLOSE OUTCOME 03)
vi
DfEE Survey of Business Performance
and Training 2000/01
Final questionnaire
University of Cambridge / IFF Research
vii
Section A General Characteristics Of The Business
A1.
First I would like to ask some questions about the characteristics of your business. In
what year did your firm begin trading? ............................................................................................
IF 1999 OR MORE RECENTLY SKIP ALL QUESTIONS REFERRING TO LAST 3 YEARS
ON QUESTIONNAIRE (A7b2, A7c2, E20a, C2, E8 - E9b, E13a, A11, B4)
A3.
Is your business
A
sole
proprietor .......
A5.
A7.
1
A partnership.
2
A company (eg a limited
company or PLC) .............
3
Other .............
Specify below
4
Which of the following most closely describes [SUBSTITUTE DEPENDING ON ANSWER AT A3: the Chief
Executive's/Managing Partner's/Proprietor's] involvement in decision making…READ OUT AND CODE ONE ONLY
They have personal control of strategic and operating decisions ..........................................
1
They have personal control of strategic decisions, but delegate operating decisions ...........
2
They are a key member of the group taking strategic decisions with indirect control of
operating decisions ...............................................................................................................
3
Or they have some other degree of involvement (please specify) .......................................
4
Which of the following exist at your business? READ OUT
I) A business plan
Yes
No
1
2
Don't
know
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Ii) A human resources plan that forecasts the numbers and types of staff
1
that will be needed in the year ahead
Iii) A written training plan that specifies in advance the level and type of
1
training your employees will need in the coming year
1
iv) A budget for training expenditure
viii
IF HAVE A BUDGET FOR TRAINING EXPENDITURE (YES AT A7iv) ASK A7b (OTHERS ASK A7c)
A7b
Roughly how much is your budget for training expenditure per annum?...............
£
IF HAVE A BUDGET FOR TRAINING EXPENDITURE AND ESTABLISHED IN 1998 OR BEFORE ASK A7b2 (IF MORE
RECENTLY SKIP TO E20)
A7b2
Compared to 3 years ago would you say that your training budget is …READ OUT
(
)
A lot lower now
1
Slightly lower now
2
About the same now
3
Slightly higher now
4
A lot higher now
5
(DO NOT READ OUT) Don’t Know
X
Now skip to E20
ASK IF NO BUDGET FOR TRAINING EXPENDITURE AT A7 (OTHERS SKIP TO E20)
A7c
A7c2
Roughly how much do you spend on training per annum? PROBE FOR
BEST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................
£
IF HAVE NO BUDGET FOR TRAINING EXPENDITURE AND ESTABLISHED IN 1998 OR BEFORE ASK A7c2
(IF MORE RECENTLY SKIP TO E20)
Compared to 3 years ago would you say that the amount you spend on training per annum is: READ OUT
(
A lot lower now
1
Slightly lower now
2
About the same now
3
Slightly higher now
4
A lot higher now
5
(DO NOT READ OUT) Don’t Know
X
)
ASK E20
ix
ASK ALL
E20.
Does your business…READ OUT FROM GRID BELOW?
IF ESTABLISHED IN 1998 OR BEFORE ASK E20a (IF MORE RECENTLY SKIP TO A8)
E20a)
And did it three years ago?
E20 Now
a)
b)
c)
Have someone at senior management level responsible for
training ..............................................................................
Have a separate training facility, such as a training school
or centre, in your organisation ..........................................
Employ staff in your organisation to design and teach
training courses ................................................................
E20a Three
years ago
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
A8.
ASK ALL
Is there someone on the Board of Directors of your organisation with specific
responsibility for employee relations?
A9.
Does your firm currently use any of the following to improve your competitiveness? READ OUT
Yes
No
Currently in use
C2.
Total quality management ..............................................
Yes
No
Quality circles.................................................................
Yes
No
Job rotation/multi-skilling ................................................
Yes
No
Performance related pay ................................................
Yes
No
Investors in People ........................................................
Yes
No
IF ESTABLISHED IN 1998 OR BEFORE ASK C2 (IF MORE RECENTLY SKIP TO D1)
Have you introduced significant changes in any of the following in the past three years?
Payment systems ........................................................
Yes
No
Production or service technology.................................
Yes
No
Working time arrangements.........................................
Yes
No
Organisation of work ....................................................
Yes
No
Work techniques or procedures ...................................
Yes
No
Initiatives to involve employees ...................................
Yes
No
Have you introduced new products or services in the
last 3 years ..................................................................
Yes
No
x
Section B
Labour Force Composition and Recruitment
D1.
ASK ALL
I'd like now to turn to workforce issues. Do you employ any staff in the following occupational groups? READ OUT
D1a
FOR EACH YES
How many (EACH CATEGORY YES) are full time? PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE
D1b
How many (EACH CATEGORY YES) are part time? PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE
Yes
Managers and senior administrators ...................
1
2
lawyers,
1
2
Technical and scientific staff (e.g. IT operators, technicians
& programmers, graphic designers, buyers, estate agents,
surveyors, lab technicians, train drivers) .............
1
2
Clerical and secretarial staff (e.g. clerks, telephonists, office
assistants, legal and other secretaries) ...............
1
2
Craft and skilled operatives (e.g. machine setters, tool
makers, fitters, motor mechanics, electricians, telephone or
TV engineers, installers and maintenance workers,
plumbers, carpenters, printers) ...........................
1
2
Personal service and sales staff (e.g. travel agent,
hairdresser, sales assistants, telephone sales people,
cashiers, call centre operatives) ..........................
1
2
Operatives and assembly staff (drivers, assembly workers)
............................................................................
1
2
Other manual workers (e.g. porters, cleaners, bar staff,
waiter/waitress, security guards, shelf fillers) ......
1
2
Professionals (e.g. accountants, engineers,
scientists, chemists, software professionals) ......
D2.
No
D1a
D1b
Full-Time Part-Time
Turning now to the overall skill level needed in your business to keep it running effectively, would you say that the skill level
required of your average employee over the last 3 years was ?
Decreasing .........................................................................
1
Stable .................................................................................
2
Increasing ...........................................................................
3
xi
D3.
D3a
About how long does it normally take before a new manager is able to do their job as well as more experienced managers
already working here. Is it…READ OUT?
IF EMPLOY ANY NON-MANAGERS/SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS AT D1ASK D3A (OTHERS ASK D8)
And about how long does it normally take before the average employee is able to do their job as well as more experienced
employees already working here. Is it…READ OUT ?
D3 Manager
D3a
Average
employee
One week or less ............................................................
1
1
More than one week, up to one month ............................
2
2
More than one month, up to six months ..........................
3
3
More than six months, up to one year .............................
4
4
More than one year .........................................................
5
5
ASK ALL
D8.
D9.
Have you experienced difficulty in recruiting employees currently or over the past three years in any of the
following occupational groups (READ OUT THOSE EMPLOY AT D1)
Managers and senior administrators ........................
Yes
No
Professionals............................................................
Yes
No
Technical and scientific staff ....................................
Yes
No
Clerical and secretarial staff .....................................
Yes
No
Craft and skilled operatives ......................................
Yes
No
Personal service and sales staff...............................
Yes
No
Operatives and assembly staff .................................
Yes
No
Other manual workers ..............................................
Yes
No
IF YES TO ANY AT D8 (OTHERS SKIP TO E1)
Taking your recruiting difficulties as a whole, how would you rate the following factors as a source of recruiting difficulties on a
scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means not at all important and 5 means extremely important.
Not at all
important
Extremely
important
Low number of applicants with relevant skills ..................
1
2
3
4
5
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
1
2
3
4
5
Pay offered too low ..........................................................
1
2
3
4
5
Too much competition from other employers ..................
1
2
3
4
5
xii
D9a
D10.
FOR EACH ANSWERED 4 OR 5 ASK D9A (OTHERS ASK D10)
Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by (SUBSTITUTE EACH A 4 OR 5 AT D) recruiting
difficulties?
Managers and senior administrators ........................
Yes
No
Professionals............................................................
Yes
No
Technical and scientific staff ....................................
Yes
No
Clerical and secretarial staff .....................................
Yes
No
Craft and skilled operatives ......................................
Yes
No
Personal service and sales staff...............................
Yes
No
Operatives and assembly staff .................................
Yes
No
Other manual workers ..............................................
Yes
No
Have you attempted to resolve the difficulties in any of the following ways? READ OUT
Increased on the job training ...........................................
Yes
No
Increased off the job training ...........................................
Yes
No
Increased Salaries/Wages...............................................
Yes
No
Redefined occupations/jobs ............................................
Yes
No
Used new technology ......................................................
Yes
No
xiii
Section C
Training
In this section we would like you to tell us about off-the-job training: by this we mean all training away from the immediate work
position. It can be given at your premises or elsewhere. It includes all sorts of courses – full or part time; correspondence or
distance learning; Health and Safety training, and so on – as long as it is funded or arranged by you.
E1.
E2.
Have you funded or arranged any off-the-job training over the past 12 months for any of the employees in this business?
Yes
1
No
2
DK
3
ASK E2
ASK E7
IF YES ASK E2 (OTHERS GO TO E7)
Did you provide off-the-job training for (READ OUT EACH EMPLOYED AT D1) in the last 12 months?
Managers and senior administrators ........................
Yes
No
Professionals............................................................
Yes
No
Technical and scientific staff ....................................
Yes
No
Clerical and secretarial staff .....................................
Yes
No
Craft and skilled operatives ......................................
Yes
No
Personal service and sales staff...............................
Yes
No
Operatives and assembly staff .................................
Yes
No
Other manual workers ..............................................
Yes
No
IF OFF-THE-JOB TRAINING FOR MANAGERS/SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS AT E2 ASK E3 (OTHERS GO TO E4)
E3.
Did this off-the-job training for management in the last 12 months cover any of the following?
Management
Teamworking ..........................
Yes
No
Induction training ....................
Yes
No
Supervisory training ................
Yes
No
Improving communication .......
Yes
No
Innovation management .........
Yes
No
Customer service/liaison .........
Yes
No
Marketing ................................
Yes
No
Health and safety ....................
Yes
No
Financial management............
Yes
No
Personnel management ..........
Yes
No
Production management .........
Yes
No
Time management ..................
Yes
No
Quality control procedures ......
Yes
No
Stress management ................
Yes
No
Other management training ....
Yes
No
xiv
E3c.
What proportion of management have had off-the-job training in the past 12 months (Off-the-job training is training away from
the normal place of work, but either on or off the premises)…READ OUT
Management
0%.......................................
1-19% .................................
20-50% ...............................
More than 50% ...................
E3b
Approximately how many days did a typical member of your management team, who undertook off-the-job training away from
their usual work position, spend doing it in the last 12 months? PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE
days
Management ...............................................
E4.
IF OFF-THE-JOB TRAINING GIVEN TO ANY NON-MANAGERS / SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS AT E2 ASK E4 (IF NONE
CHECK E8)
Now thinking about off-the-job training for non-managers in the last 12 months, did it cover any of the following? READ OUT
Non managers
Computing ..............................
Yes
No
Teamworking ..........................
Yes
No
Induction training ....................
Yes
No
Supervisory training ................
Yes
No
Improving communication .......
Yes
No
Operation of new equipment ...
Yes
No
Customer service/liaison .........
Yes
No
Health and safety ....................
Yes
No
Problem-solving methods .......
Yes
No
Equal opportunities .................
Yes
No
Yes
No
Quality control procedures ......
Yes
No
Stress management ................
Yes
No
Time management ..................
xv
E6.
What proportion of employees (ie non-managers) have had off-the-job training over the last 12 months (Off-the-job training is
training away from the normal place of work, but either on or off the premises)…READ OUT
Non-managers
0% .......................................
1-19% ..................................
20-50% ................................
More than 50% ....................
E5.
Approximately how many days did the average employee (ie non-manager), who undertook off-the-job training away from their
usual work position, spend doing it in the last 12 months?
days
Average employee ..............................................
E7.
ASK E7 IF ESTABLISHED 1998 OR BEFORE (OTHERS SKIP TO E10)
Now I would like to ask you about the off-the-job training position 3 years ago.
Did you provide off-the-job training for managers 3 years ago?
Three years ago
Management .....................................................
E9a.
Slightly
lower now
About the
same now
Slightly
higher now
A lot
higher now
Did you provide off-the-job training for employees 3 years ago?
Employees ........................................................
E9.
No
IF OFF JOB TRAINING PROVIDED FOR MANAGEMENT NOW (YES AT E1) AND 3 YEARS AGO (YES TO E8) ASK E9A
(OTHERS ASK E8b)
Thinking now about the typical member of your management team who undertook off-the-job training in the past 12 months,
would you say that the number of days spent on such training now compared to three years was:
A lot
lower now
E8b.
Yes
Yes
No
IF OFF JOB TRAINING PROVIDED FOR ANY NON-MANAGERS NOW AT E1 AND 3 YEARS AGO (YES TO E8B) ASK E9
(IF NO OFF JOB SKIP TO E10)
Thinking now about average employee (non-manager) who undertook off-the-job training in the past 12 months, would you
say that the number of days spent on such training now compared to three years was:
A lot
lower now
Slightly
lower now
About the
same now
xvi
Slightly
higher now
A lot
higher now
E10.
E11.
E12a.
ASK ALL
I'd like to turn now to on-the-job training. By this I mean training given at the desk or place where the
person usually works, this excludes off-the-job training which is given away from the usual work position. Have you
funded or arranged any on-the-job training over the past 12 months for any of the employees in this business?
Yes
1
No
2
DK
3
ASK E11
ASK E13
IF YES
For which of the following occupation groups have you provided on-the-job training over the last 12 months (LIST THOSE
EMPLOY AT D1)?
Managers and senior administrators ........................
Yes
No
Professionals............................................................
Yes
No
Technical and scientific staff ....................................
Yes
No
Clerical and secretarial staff .....................................
Yes
No
Craft and skilled operatives ......................................
Yes
No
Personal service and sales staff...............................
Yes
No
Operatives and assembly staff .................................
Yes
No
Other manual workers ..............................................
Yes
No
IF YES TO MANAGERS/SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS (OTHERS CHECK E12c)
What proportion of management have had on-the-job training in the past 12 months READ OUT
Management
0%.......................................
1-19% .................................
20-50% ...............................
More than 50% ...................
E12b
Approximately how many days did a typical member of your management team who undertook on-the-job training spend doing
it in the past 12 months? PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE
Days
Management ...............................................
IF YES TO ANY NON-MANAGEMENT AT E11 (OTHERS ASK E13)
E12c1. What proportion of employees (ie non-managers) have had on-the-job training over the past 12 months. Is it…READ OUT
Non-managers
0% .......................................
1-19% ..................................
20-50% ................................
More than 50% ....................
E12c)
Approximately how many days did your average employee (ie non-manager) who undertook on-the-job training spend doing it
in the past 12 months?
Days
Non-manager ...................................................
xvii
E13)
ASK IF ESTABLISHED 1998 OR BEFORE (OTHERS CHEK E16)
Did you fund or arrange on-the-job training for management three years ago?
Three years ago
Management .....................................................
E13a.
No
ASK E13A IF CURRENTLY FUND ON JOB TRAINING FOR MANAGERS AT E11 AND DID SO 3 YEARS AGO AT E13 OTHERS CHECK E13b
Thinking now about the typical member of your management team who undertook on-the-job training in the past 12 months,
would you say that the number of days spent on such training now compared to three years was:
A lot
lower now
E13b)
Yes
Slightly
lower now
About the
same now
Slightly
higher now
A lot
higher now
ASK ALL ESTABLISHED IN 1998 OR BEFORE (OTHERS CHECK E16)
Did you fund or arrange on-the-job training for employees three years ago?
Three years ago
Employees ........................................................
E13C.
E21.
No
ASK E13C IF CURRENTLY FUND ON JOB TRAINING NOW FOR NON-MANAGERS (E11) AND 3 YEARS AGO (E13b) OTHERS CHECK E16
Thinking now about average employee who undertook on-the-job training in the past 12 months, would you say that the
number of days spent on such training now compared to three years was:
A lot
lower now
E16
Yes
Slightly
lower now
About the
same now
Slightly
higher now
A lot
higher now
IF NO OFF OR ON JOB TRAINING CURRENTLY ASK E16 (OTHERS SKIP TO E21a)
Have you provided any training at all for staff or management over the last 12 months?
Yes
1
ASK E21
No
2
DK
3
IF NO AT E8 AND E8B AND E13 AND E13A GO TO
A10
IF YES TO ANY OF THESE ASK E21B
ASK ALL CURRENTLY PROVIDING ANY TRAINING (YES AT E1, E10 OR E16) - OTHERS SKIP TO A10 IF UNDERTOOK
NO TRAINING 3 YEARS AGO; OR TO E21B IF UNDERTOOK TRAINING 3 YEARS AGO
Taking on and off-the-job training as a whole, how many staff in your business are engaged in the management, design and
provision of training?
for part of their time ........
(E21A1) for all of their
time................................
xviii
E21b.
IF TRAIN NOW OR IN LAST 3 YEARS AND ESTABLISHED IN 1998 OR BEFORE ASK E21B (OTHERS CHECK E24)
How many staff in your business were engaged in the management, design and provision of training three years ago?
for part of their time ........
E24.
(E21B1) for all of their
time................................
IF TRAIN NOW OR IN LAST 3 YEARS (OTHERS SKIP TO A10)
To what extent would you say that the training you have provided has met its objectives?
Wholly
Largely
Partly
To small extent
Don’t know
Not at all
E25.
In terms of the following measures, how much larger or smaller do you think your business is today as a result of the total
training you have provided in the last three years? PROMPT WITH RANGES
A lot
smaller
A little
smaller
No
difference
A little
larger
A lot
larger
Turnover ....................................................
1
2
3
4
5
Employment ...............................................
1
2
3
4
5
Labour productivity ....................................
1
2
3
4
5
Pre-tax profit margin on sales ....................
1
2
3
4
5
xix
Section D
Business Performance and Competitive Situation
The final questions ask about business performance such as turnover, profits and exports.
A10a1. Are you able to answer questions such as this or would it be best to speak to someone else, e.g. your finance director?
Yes able to answer…………..
No- Transfer…………………..
No- No one else currently
available……………………….
A10.
Continue
Record existing and new respondents details- Transfer and re-introduce
Record existing and new respondents details- Arrange call back and close
Please provide the following information for the latest financial year for which
Please specify the accounting year end and the number of months covered in that year.
A. Month
you
have
data
available.
B. Year
Accounting year ending:...........
C. No.
covered
of
months
D. Turnover .............................................................................................................
£
,000
E. Exports ................................................................................................................
£
,000
F. Pre-Tax profits (losses) before deduction of interest, tax, and directors’, partners’
or proprietors’ emoluments ......................................................................................
£
,000
G. Check is
that profit or
loss?
H. Average number of full time employees (including working directors) .................
I. Average number of part time employees .............................................................
A12.
Roughly what proportion of this business’s turnover is accounted for by wages, salaries and other labour costs like pensions
and national insurance. Is it…READ OUT?
Now
Less than 10% .........................................................
10% but less than 20% ............................................
20% but less than 30% ............................................
30% but less than 40% ............................................
40% or more ............................................................
A11.
IF FOUNDED IN 1998 OR BEFORE ASK A11 (OTHERS B4)
Compared with three years ago has ?
Decreased
a lot
Turnover ..........................................................................
Exports ............................................................................
Pre-Tax profits (losses) before deduction of
interest, tax, and directors’, partners’ or
proprietors’ emoluments
Average number of full time employees (including
working directors) ............................................................
Average number of part time employees ........................
Wages, salaries and other labour costs ..........................
Labour productivity ..........................................................
xx
Decreased
a little
Stayed
the same
Increased
a little
Increased
a lot
B4.
I'm interested to know how your firm’s total sales in the last financial year were distributed between products or services
largely unchanged in the last 3 years, products or services significantly improved in the last 3 years and then new products or
services. So what proportion of your sales were in…READ OUT?
Products or services unchanged or only marginally changed in the last 3 years ..............
%
Significantly improved products or services introduced within the last 3 years .................
%
New products or services introduced within the last 3 years ............................................
%
CHECK ADDS TO 100% UNLESS DON'T KNOW ANSWER .........................................
100%
B1.
How many firms do you regard as serious competitors? PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE ..............
B5.
In each of the following areas I'd like to know how your business is currently performing compared with other businesses in the
same industry. Please use a scale of 1-5 where 1 means a lot below average and 5 means a lot better than average.
A lot
below
average
B2.
B9.
A lot better
than
average
No
comparison
possible
Relevant
data not
available
Financial performance..................
1
2
3
4
5
X
V
Labour productivity .......................
1
2
3
4
5
X
V
Quality of product or service ........
1
2
3
4
5
X
V
Wages, salaries and other labour
costs.............................................
1
2
3
4
5
X
V
Approximately what percentage of your sales last year was accounted for by…READ OUT AND PROMPT WITH RANGES
Your single largest
Customer? .......................
Not applicable
Less than 10%
10-24%
25-49%
50-75%
More than 75%
Your top 5 Customers? ....
Not applicable
Less than 10%
10-24%
25-49%
50-75%
More than 75%
Which of the following best describes your growth objectives over the next 3 years…READ OUT?
Become smaller .......
Stay same size .......
Grow moderately ....
Grow substantially .
THANK RESPONDENT AND CLOSE INTERVIEW
I declare that this survey has been carried out under IFF instructions and within the rules of the MRS Code of
Conduct.
Interviewer signature:
Date:
Finish time:
Interview Length
xxi
mins
Appendix 2
The Sample Design and Response Bias
Analysis
xxii
Sample Design
The sample design was based on stratified quota sampling of head offices and
single site organisations and included independent and subsidiary businesses.
Stratification was to be by sector (5 groupings) and employment size (6
groupings within the 5 to 2499 employees range).
The sectoral split agreed with DfES was based on the UK SIC 1992 and is
shown below
Sector
High tech manufacturing
1992 SIC Codes
2416, 2417, 2441, 2442, 3001, 3002, 3110,
3120, 3210, 3220, 323, 33, 3530
Other manufacturing
15-36 excluding the above
Distribution, hotels
50-55
Financial services
65-67
Business services
6411-6420, 7220-7260, 7310-7620, 74117450, 7481-7484
This broad sectoral split reflected the need to have sector samples of sufficient
size to permit statistical analysis at the sector level. Manufacturing was therefore
split into high tech and other manufacturing. In the services sectors it was agreed
to cover distribution and hotels financial services and business services.
xxiii
Target Sample Size, and Employment Size and Sector Quotas
The target achieved sample size was 2,500 firms. It was intended to have the
following structure by size and sector
Employment Size Class
Sector
5-9
1099
100199
200499
500999
1,0002,499
Total
High tech
Manufacturing
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Other
manufacturing
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Distribution,
hotels
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Financial
Services
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Business
Services
100
100
75
75
75
75
500
Total
500
500
375
375
375
375
2,500
In one case this exceeded the number of companies that Dun and Bradstreet had
in their database (hi tech manufacturing size 1,000-2,499 where they have 63
such records available to use). In other cases the target number was close to the
total number of records they could supply (in some of the 1,000-2,499 size
categories).
The number of records available on the D&B database for GB was as follows:
Sector
5-9
Employment Size Class
10020050010-99
199
499
999
1,0002,499
High tech
manufacturing
1,538
3,146
393
287
85
63
Other
manufacturing
10,677
16,001
1,542
1,729
616
300
Distribution,
hotels
75,916
55,386
2,132
1,296
395
259
Financial
services
5,086
5,182
540
432
169
151
Business
services
24,146
25,482
2,639
2,351
1,011
783
xxiv
In the end it was decided that the interviewing would take place in England only,
hence the actual number of records available was lower than stated. In addition a
manual inspection of the sample provided led to certain records being excluded
since it was evident that they were not in the sectors specified (this occurred
particularly in regard to charities and schools). About 600 records were removed
for these reasons.
All the sample in the 500+ size categories (other than in business services) was
ordered from D&B. The amount of usable English sample was as follows:
Employment
Sector
500-999
1,000-2,499
High tech manufacturing
63
47
Other manufacturing
508
258
Distribution, hotels
316
169
Financial services
85
63
In cases where it was not possible to achieve the target number of interviews it
was agreed to boost the numbers in the next size category down, while sticking
to the same sector.
We show the profile of the interviews achieved by size and sector later in this
report. Overall we were not able to achieve the number of interviews desired in
1,000-2,499 or 500-999 categories. By sector achieved interviews were lower
than the initial target in hi-tech manufacturing and financial services.
Response Rates and Response Bias
This section reports on the outcomes of the telephone survey and the
discrepancies from the target sample. It presents the response to the Business
Performance and Training survey, undertaken by IFF Research Ltd. for the CBR
by size and sector; the preferred sector classification; the unit and item refusal
rates; and response bias analysis.
xxv
Response by Size
The survey response by size class was as follows:
Respondents by size
Number of interview firms
Size class
Achieved
Achieved
Target (D&B
(survey)
size)
%
% of firms
which
are
independent
5 - 9 employees
10 - 99 employees
100 - 199 employees
200 - 499 employees
500 - 999 employees
1000 or more employees
500
500
375
375
375
375
539
529
525
409
319
179
428
730
398
455
281
208
17.12%
29.20%
15.92%
18.20%
11.24%
8.32%
95.6%
83.8%
69.4%
65.1%
53.6%
51.7%
Total sample
2500
2500
2500
100%
74.1%
Fewer interviews were achieved in the two largest size classes (500-999 and
1000+) and the highest proportion of respondents was in the 10 – 99 size group.
About three-quarters of the sample are independent, the others being part of a
larger group. Subsidiaries were more commonly found amongst the larger size
groups.
Response by Sector
The responses were grouped into three sets of sector classification: the original
Dun & Bradstreet classification; interviewer classification, which was based on
the interviewer’s interpretation of the respondent’s description; and a
classification by the IFF coding team based on the respondent’s description and
also, in case of doubt on a further telephone call asking for clarification. All three
sets are shown in the table below together with the target numbers. We have
chosen to use the IFF coding team classification as we regard it to be the most
reliable.
xxvi
Respondents by Sector
Sector
High tech
manufacturing
Other
manufacturing
Distribution, hotels
Financial services
Business services
Total
% of firms
Dun &
Classification
which
Target Bradstreet Classification by IFF coding Chosen
are
Number sector by interviewer
team
IFF
independent
500
336
523
275
11.0%
67.6%
500
500
500
500
528
582
441
613
503
543
420
511
666
607
385
567
26.6%
24.3%
15.4%
22.7%
66.5%
83.2%
73.4%
76.8%
2500
2500
2500
2500
100%
74.1%
Distribution has the highest, and conventional manufacturing the lowest,
proportion of firms which are independent.
xxvii
Refusal Rates
The telephone interview approach to sampling can maximise the chance that the
chosen target sampling fractions are achieved when compared with postal
surveys. However, this does not ensure that the sample is without problems
since a non-response bias might still exist. The refusal rates by sector split and
by size class split were as follows:
Refusal rates
Total
sample
Refusals Refusal rate
Overall sample
6235
3735
59.9%
Split by D&B
sectors
High tech
manufacturing
Other manufacturing
Distribution, hotels
Financial services
Business services
746
1079
1537
1209
1664
410
551
955
768
1051
55.0%
51.1%
62.1%
63.5%
63.2%
1406
1292
1314
1105
721
867
763
789
696
402
61.7%
59.1%
60.0%
63.0%
55.8%
397
218
54.9%
Split by size
classes
5 – 9 employees
10 - 99 employees
100 - 199 employees
200 - 499 employees
500 - 999 employees
1000 or more
employees
Manufacturing firms were more likely to take part and particularly firms in other
manufacturing. Looking at size, firms with 500 and more employees had the
lowest refusal rate whereas firms with 200-499 employees had the highest
refusal rates.
The item non-response table is to be found in Appendix 3.
Response Bias Analysis
We performed a response bias analysis on sector and size as follows: For each
of the five sectors we compared the Dun & Bradstreet SIC codes to a two digit
level against the full interview sample and the refusals. For other manufacturing
the SIC groups were combined further into 8 groups (chemicals, man-made
xxviii
fibres, rubber and plastic; metal manufacture and metal goods; electrical and
electronic engineering; food and beverages; textiles, leather, footwear and
clothing; timber, furniture, paper and printing; mechanical engineering; and other
manufacturing). Similarly for each size class we compared employment size
against the full interview sample and the refusals group. The results are set out
below.
Response bias analysis
Split by D&B sectors (Chi-square test)
High tech manufacturing
Other manufacturing
Distribution, hotels
Financial services
Business services
not significant
significant
not significant
significant
significant
Split by size classes (Mann-Whitney test)
5 - 9 employees
10 - 99 employees
100 - 199 employees
200 - 499 employees
500 - 999 employees
1000 or more employees
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
Taking first the sector analysis, there were significant differences in other
manufacturing (higher response rate in food and beverages and mechanical
engineering and lower in textiles etc. and timber, furniture etc.), financial services
(higher response rate in insurance and pension funding and lower in financial
intermediation), and business services where the response rate was lowest in
post and telecommunication and highest in R&D and also high in computer and
related activities. It would be necessary to take account of these sub-sector
differences if one were to gross up our findings for the whole sector.
Looking at the size class analysis, we found that the only size group where there
was a significant difference was in the 5 – 9 group, where the response rate
increased with size.
Therefore, if we want to aggregate the data to the population totals we would
have to aggregate to 2-digit SIC level instead of our broad sectors and for size,
we would have to take employment 5 – 9 separately for each size.
We also looked at region to see if there was a geographical difference in
response rate. The results are as follows:
xxix
Refusal Rates by Region
Total
respondents
Total
sample
Refusals
Refusal rate
South East
East Anglia
South West
West Midlands
East Midlands
Yorkshire &
Humberside
North West
North
Wales
Scotland
1071
111
231
222
178
3032
223
531
530
419
1961
112
300
308
241
64.7%
50.2%
56.5%
58.1%
57.5%
195
239
97
53
103
475
619
217
56
133
280
380
120
3
30
58.9%
61.4%
55.3%
5.4%
22.6%
Total
2500
6235
3735
59.9%
Region
The survey focused on England but some firms from Scotland and Wales were
approached and on the whole they were very willing to be interviewed. The South
East had the highest refusal rate, followed by the North West with East Anglia
having the lowest refusal rate in England.
We also examined whether there were any sector and size differences within
counties. Taking first sectors, as can be seen in the table below, there were
significant differences in the South East and the South West. In the South East
the pattern was similar to the total sample with the highest refusal rate in financial
services and the lowest in other manufacturing. In the South West the highest
refusal rate was found in distribution and hotels and the lowest was again in other
manufacturing.
There were no significant differences in size in England. However, in both
Scotland and Wales the refusals had significantly more employees than the
respondents.
xxx
Response bias - Sector and size class by region
Region
Respondents vs. Refusals
South East
East Anglia
South West
West Midlands
East Midlands
Yorkshire & Humberside
North West
North
Wales
Scotland
Sectora
Significant
not significant
Significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not possible to test
not significant
South East
East Anglia
South West
West Midlands
East Midlands
Yorkshire & Humberside
North West
North
Wales
Scotland
Employment Sizeb
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
Significant
Significant
a
b
Chi-square test
Mann-Whitney test
The overall conclusion from our response bias analysis is that there is little cause
for concern. Of course, care would be needed in grossing up our findings to
population levels.
xxxi
APPENDIX 3
Variable List and Non Response Analysis
xxxii
Variable
name
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
Eligible to
Cases
answer
included
Missing
(N)
(N)
(N) (%)
2500
2495
5
0.2
5
5
0
0.0
Screener
EMP
Number of employees
EMPR
Number of employees prompted
ACTIV
S11a.COMPANY TYPE
2500
2500
0
0.0
SITE
S12.Is this the headquarters of an organisation with more than one site,
the only site, or neither.
2500
2500
0
0.0
IND
S13.And are you independent, i.e. not part of a larger organisation?
2500
2495
5
0.2
Section A
General Characteristics of the Business
YEARS
A1.In what year did your company start trading
2500
2374
126
5.0
CO
A3.Is your business.....
2500
2494
6
0.2
INVDEC
A5.Which of the following most closely describes the MD/owner/Chief
Executives involvement in decision making
2500
2404
96
3.8
BUSPL
A7a:Do you have a business plan
2500
2433
67
2.7
HRPL
A7b:Do you have a human resources plan
2500
2448
52
2.1
WRTRPL
A7c:Do you have a written training plan
2500
2485
15
0.6
TRBUDG
A7d:Do you have a budget for training expenditure
2500
2471
29
1.2
1515
881
634 41.8
1515
1269
246 16.2
TRBUDGCH Compared to 3 years ago would you say that your training budget is...
1356
1281
75
TRSPEN
985
598
387 39.3
985
886
99
10.1
907
847
60
6.6
2500
2499
1
0.0
2500
2499
1
0.0
2500
2494
6
0.2
2263
2240
23
1.0
2263
2236
27
1.2
TREXP
TREXPPR
A7b1.Roughly how much is your budget for training expenditure per
annum ?
A7b2.Budget for training expenditure(prompted & unprompted
responses from A7b)
A7c.Roughly how much do you spend on training per annum ?
A7c.Roughly how much do you spend on training per annum (prompted
and unprompted responses) ?
A7c2.Compared to three years ago would you say that amount you
TRSPENCH
spend on training per annum is
e20a.Does your business...Have someone at senior management level
TR1
responsible for training
TRSPENPR
TR2
TR3
TR1A
TR2A
e20b.Does your business...Have a separate training facility
e20c.Does your business...Employ staff in your organisation to design
and teach training courses
e20a1.And did it Have someone at senior management level
responsible for training three years ago?
e20a2.And did it Have a separate training facility three years ago?
xxxiii
5.5
Variable
name
TR3A
EMPREL
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
Eligible to
Cases
answer
included
(N)
e20a3.And did it Employ staff in your organisation to design and teach
2263
training courses three years ago?
A8.Is there someone on the Board of Directors specifically responsible
2500
for employee relations?
(N)
Missing
(N) (%)
2216
47
2.1
2444
56
2.2
WORK4
A9a.Do you use Total quality management
2500
2406
94
3.8
WORK5
A9b.Do you use Quality circles
2500
2391
109
4.4
WORK6
A9c.Do you use Job rotation/multi-skilling
2500
2482
18
0.7
WORK7
A9d.Do you use Performance related pay
2500
2486
14
0.6
WORK8
A9e.Do you use Investors in people
2500
2474
26
1.0
2263
2213
50
2.2
2263
2217
46
2.0
2263
2237
26
1.1
2263
2216
47
2.1
2263
2237
26
1.1
2263
2234
29
1.3
2263
2243
20
0.9
WORKCH1
WORKCH2
WORKCH3
WORKCH4
WORKCH5
WORKCH6
C2a.Have you introduced significant changes in Payment systems in
the past three years
C2b.Have you introduced significant changes in Production or service
technology in the past three years
C2c.Have you introduced significant changes in Working time
arrangements in the past three years
C2d.Have you introduced significant changes in Organisation of work in
the past three years
C2e.Have you introduced significant changes in Work techniques or
procedures in the past three years
C2f.Have you introduced significant changes in Initiatives to involve
employees in the past three years
NEW
C2oth.have you introduced new products/services in last 3 years
Section B
Labour Force Composition and Recruitment
EMP1
D1a.Do you employ: Managers and senior administrative occupations
2500
2499
1
0.0
EMP2
D1b.Do you employ: Professional Occupations
2500
2498
2
0.1
EMP3
D1c.Do you employ: Technical and scientific occupations
2500
2500
0
0.0
EMP4
D1d.Do you employ: Clerical & Secretarial occupations
2500
2499
1
0.0
EMP5
D1e.Do you employ: Craft and Skill operative occupations
2500
2498
2
0.1
EMP6
D1f.Do you employ: Personal service and Sales occupations
2500
2496
4
0.2
EMP7
D1g.Do you employ: Operatives and assembly occupations
2500
2498
2
0.1
EMP8
D1h.Do you employ: Other Manual occupations
2500
2498
2
0.1
OCCF1
D1aa.How many full time: Managers and senior administrative
occupations do you employ
2499
2401
98
3.9
OCCF2
D1ab.How many full time: Professional Occupations do you employ
2498
2339
159
6.4
OCCF3
D1ac.How many full time: Technical and scientific occupations do you
employ
2500
2381
119
4.8
xxxiv
Variable
name
OCCF4
OCCF5
OCCF6
OCCF7
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
D1ad.How many full time: Clerical & Secretarial occupations do you
employ
D1ae.How many full time: Craft and Skill operative occupations do you
employ
D1af.How many full time: Personal service and Sales occupations do
you employ
D1ag.How many full time: Operatives and assembly occupations do you
employ
Eligible to Cases
answer included
(N)
(N)
2499
2355
2498
2390
2496
2381
2498
2416
Missing
(N) (%)
14
4
10
8
11
5
82
10
0
12
4
17
8
16
3
19
8
12
9
16
0
10
9
11
2
5.8
4.3
4.6
3.3
OCCF8
D1ah.How many full time: Other Manual occupations do you employ
2498
2398
OCCP1
D1ba.How many part time: Managers and senior administrative
occupations do you employ
2499
2375
OCCP2
D1bb.How many part time: Professional Occupations do you employ
2498
2320
2500
2337
2499
2301
2498
2369
2496
2336
2498
2389
2498
2386
2500
2476
24
1.0
2216
1964
25
2
11.
4
2494
2371
12
3
4.9
2216
2195
21
0.9
1868
1845
23
1.2
1607
1582
25
1.6
2266
2244
22
1.0
1246
1229
17
1.4
1605
1582
23
1.4
1115
1099
16
1.4
1229
1211
18
1.5
1498
1475
23
1.5
1498
1474
24
1.6
OCCP3
OCCP4
OCCP5
OCCP6
OCCP7
OCCP8
SKILL
JOBMAN
JOBNMA
N
RECDIF1
RECDIF2
RECDIF3
RECDIF4
RECDIF5
RECDIF6
RECDIF7
RECDIF8
RECDFA
C1
RECDFA
C2
D1bc.How many part time: Technical and scientific occupations do you
employ
D1bd.How many part time: Clerical & Secretarial occupations do you
employ
D1be.How many part time: Craft and Skill operative occupations do you
employ
D1bf.How many part time: Personal service and Sales occupations do
you employ
D1bg.How many part time: Operatives and assembly occupations do
you employ
D1bh.How many part time: Other Manual occupations do you employ
D2.Would you say that the skill level required in your average employee
over the last 3 years was..?
D3.About how long does it normally take before a new manager is able
to do their job as well as more experienced managers already working
here. Iist...
D3a.And about how long does it normally take before the average
employee is
D8a.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Managers and senior administrative occupations
D8b.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Professional Occupations
D8c.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Technical and scientific occupations
D8d.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Clerical & Secretarial occupations
D8e.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Craft and Skill operative occupations
D8f.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Personal service and Sales occupations
D8g.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Operatives and assembly occupations
D8h.Have you experienced any difficulties in recruiting employees in
:Other Manual occupations
D9a.How would you rate Low number of applicants with relevant skills
as a source of recruiting difficulties
D9b.How would you rate Low number of applicants with relevant work
experience as a source of recruiting difficulties
xxxv
4.0
5.0
7.1
6.5
7.9
5.2
6.4
4.4
4.5
Variable
name
RECDFAC
3
RECDFAC
4
FAC1_1
FAC1_2
FAC1_3
FAC1_4
FAC1_5
FAC1_6
FAC1_7
FAC1_8
FAC2_1
FAC2_2
FAC2_3
FAC2_4
FAC2_5
FAC2_6
FAC2_7
FAC2_8
FAC3_1
FAC3_2
FAC3_3
FAC3_4
FAC3_5
FAC3_6
FAC3_7
FAC3_8
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
D9c.How would you rate Pay offered being too low as a source of
recruiting difficulties
D9d.How would you rate Too much competition from other employers as a
source of recruiting difficulties
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant skills
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Low number of applicants with relevant work experience
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have been particularly affected by
Pay offered being too low
xxxvi
Eligible to Cases
answer included
Missing
(N)
(N)
(N) (%)
1498
1470
28
1.9
1498
1471
27
1.8
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
948
948
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
725
725
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
428
428
0
0.0
Variable
name
FAC4_1
FAC4_2
FAC4_3
FAC4_4
FAC4_5
FAC4_6
FAC4_7
FAC4_8
Variable description
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
D9a.Which occupation or occupations have
Too much competition from other employers
Total sample: 2500
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
been particularly affected by
Eligible to Cases
answer included
Missing
(N)
(N)
(N) (%)
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
604
604
0
0.0
RESDIF1
D10a.Have you Increased on the job training
1498
1486
12
0.8
RESDIF2
D10b.Have you Increased off the job training
1498
1486
12
0.8
RESDIF3
D10c.Have you Increased Salaries/Wages
1498
1476
22
1.5
RESDIF4
D10d.Have you Redefined occupations/jobs
1498
1483
15
1.0
RESDIF5
D10e.Have you Used new technology
1498
1488
10
0.7
2500
2484
16
0.6
1831
1824
7
0.4
1622
1607
15
0.9
1450
1433
17
1.2
1858
1848
10
0.5
1054
1044
10
0.9
1364
1346
18
1.3
949
939
10
1.1
1027
1019
8
0.8
TRMOF02 E3a.Did the off-the-job training cover Teamworking
1503
1475
28
1.9
TRMOF03 E3b.Did the off-the-job training cover Induction training
1503
1488
15
1.0
TRMOF04 E3c.Did the off-the-job training cover Supervisory training
1503
1488
15
1.0
Section C Training
E1.Have you funded or arranged any off-the-job training over the past 12
TROF
months for any of the employees ?
E2a.Did you provide off-the-job training for Managers and senior
TROF1
administrative occupations in the last 12 months?
E2b.Did you provide off-the-job training for Professional Occupations in the
TROF2
last 12 months?
E2c.Did you provide off-the-job training for Technical and scientific
TROF3
occupations in the last 12 months?
E2d.Did you provide off-the-job training for Clerical & Secretarial
TROF4
occupations in the last 12 months?
E2e.Did you provide off-the-job training for Craft and Skill operative
TROF5
occupations in the last 12 months?
E2f.Did you provide off-the-job training for Personal service and Sales
TROF6
occupations in the last 12 months?
E2g.Did you provide off-the-job training for Operatives and assembly
TROF7
occupations in the last 12 months?
E2h.Did you provide off-the-job training for Other Manual occupations in
TROF8
the last 12 months?
xxxvii
Variable
name
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
Eligible to Cases
answer included
Missing
(N)
(N)
TRMOF05 E3d.Did the off-the-job training cover Improving communication
1503
1482
21
1.4
TRMOF14 E3e.Did the off-the-job training cover Innovation management skills
1503
1455
48
3.2
TRMOF07 E3f.Did the off-the-job training cover Customer service/liaison
1503
1481
22
1.5
TRMOF15 E3g.Did the off-the-job training cover Marketing skills
1503
1475
28
1.9
TRMOF08 E3h.Did the off-the-job training cover Health and safety
1503
1484
19
1.3
TRMOF16 E3i.Did the off-the-job training cover Financial management
1503
1462
41
2.7
TRMOF17 E3j.Did the off-the-job training cover Personnel management
1503
1482
21
1.4
TRMOF18 E3k.Did the off-the-job training cover Production management
1503
1469
34
2.3
TRMOF11 E3l.Did the off-the-job training cover Time Management
1503
1483
20
1.3
TRMOF12 E3m.Did the off-the-job training cover Quality control procedures
1503
1469
34
2.3
TRMOF13 E3n.Did the off-the-job training cover Stress management
1503
1478
25
1.7
TRMOF19 E3o.Did the off-the-job training cover Other management training
1503
1476
27
1.8
1503
1472
31
2.1
1503
1392
111
7.4
1860
1852
8
0.4
1860
1840
20
1.1
1860
1852
8
0.4
1860
1844
16
0.9
1860
1845
15
0.8
1860
1846
14
0.8
1860
1842
18
1.0
1860
1848
12
0.6
1860
1829
31
1.7
1860
1834
26
1.4
1860
1843
17
0.9
1860
1834
26
1.4
E3c.What proportion of management have had off-the-job training in the
past 12 months
E3b.Approximately, how many days did a typical member of your
TRMOFDY management team, who undertook off-the-job training end doing it in the
last 12 months?
TRNMOF0
E4a.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Computing skills?
1
TRNMOF0
E4b.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Teamworking?
2
TRNMOF0
E4c.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Induction training?
3
TRNMOF0
E4d.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Supervisory training?
4
TRNMOF0 E4e.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Improving
5
communication?
TRNMOF0 E4f.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Operation of new
6
equipment?
TRNMOF0
E4g.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Customer service/liaison?
7
TRNMOF0
E4h.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Health and safety?
8
TRNMOF0
E4i.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Problem-solving methods?
9
TRNMOF1
E4j.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Equal opportunities?
0
TRNMOF1
E4k.Did off-the-job training for employees cover time Management?
1
TRNMOF1 E4l.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Quality control
2
procedures?
TRMOFPR
xxxviii
(N) (%)
Variable
name
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
TRNMOF1
E4m.Did off-the-job training for employees cover Stress management ?
3
TRNMOFP E6.What proportion of employees (i.e. non-managers) have had off-the-job
R
training over the last twelve months
E5.Approximately, how many days did your average employee who
TRNMOFD
undertook off-the-job training away from their usual work position, spend
Y
doing it in the past 12 months?
TRMOFA
TRMOFCH
TRNMOFA
TRNMOFC
H
TRON
TRON1
TRON2
TRON3
TRON4
TRON5
TRON6
TRON7
TRON8
TRMONPR
TRMONDY
TRNMONP
R
TRNMOND
Y
TRMONA
TRMONCH
TRNMONA
TRNMONC
H
TRAINCAS
E7.Did you provide off-the-job training for managers three years ago ?
E9a.Thinking about the typical member of you management team who
undertook off
E8.Did you fund or arrange off-the-job training for employees three years
ago ?
E9.Thinking about the average employee(non management), who
undertook
E10.Have you funded or arranged any on-the-job training over the past 12
months for any of the employees in this business ?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Managers and senior
administrative occupations over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Professional Occupations
over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Technical and scientific
occupations over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Clerical & Secretarial
occupations over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Craft and Skill operative
occupations over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Personal service and Sales
occupations over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Operatives and assembly
occupations over the past 12 months?
E11.Have you provided on-the-job training for Other Manual occupations
over the past 12 months?
E12a.What proportion of management have had on the job training in the
past twelve months
E12b.Approximately, how many days did a typical member of your
management team
E12c1.What proportion of employees (i.e. non managers) have had on the
job training in the past twelve months
E12c.Approximately, how many days did your average employee (i.e. nonmanagers)
E13.Did you fund or arrange any on-the-job training for management three
years
E13a.Thinking about the typical member of your management team who
undertook on
E13b.Did you fund or arrange on-the-job training for employees three
years ago ?
E13c.Thinking about your average employee who undertook on the job
training in
E16.Have you provided any training at all for staff or management over the
past
xxxix
Eligible to Cases
answer included
Missing
(N)
(N)
(N) (%)
1860
1840
20
1.1
1860
1829
31
1.7
1860
1734
126
6.8
2263
2115
148
6.5
935
924
11
1.2
2363
2117
246 10.4
1206
1193
13
1.1
2500
2478
22
0.9
1783
1771
12
0.7
1544
1530
14
0.9
1362
1350
12
0.9
1805
1797
8
0.4
1020
1010
10
1.0
1336
1326
10
0.7
926
922
4
0.4
1012
1003
9
0.9
1135
1135
0
0.0
1135
888
1914
1914
1914
1547
367 19.2
2263
2069
194
8.6
678
667
11
1.6
2363
2091
272 11.5
1222
1208
14
1.1
200
199
1
0.5
247 21.8
0
0.0
Variable
name
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
TRPROV1 E21.Taking on and off the job training as a whole How many staff in your
e21a1.How many staff in your business are engaged in the management,
design and
TRPROV1 E21b.How many staff in your business were engaged in the management,
A
design and
TRPROV2 E21b1.How many staff in your business are engaged in the management,
A
design and
E24.To what extent would you say that the training you have provided has
TROBJ
met its objectives?
E25a.In terms of the following measures, how much larger or smaller do
TRSIZ1
you think your busin. is today as a result of the total training you have
provided Turnover ?
E25b.In terms of the following measures, how much larger or smaller do
TRSIZ2
you think your busin. is today as a result of the total training you have
provided Employment ?
E25c.In terms of the following measures, how much larger or smaller do
TRSIZ3
you think your busin. is today as a result of the total training you have
provided Labour productivity?
E25d.In terms of the following measures, how much larger or smaller do
TRSIZ4
you think your busin. is today as a result of the total training you have
provided Pre-tax prof. Margin
TRPROV2
Eligible to Cases
answer included
Missing
(N)
(N)
(N) (%)
2500
2465
35
1.4
2500
2427
73
2.9
2500
2358
142
5.7
2500
2319
181
7.2
2353
2319
34
1.4
2353
2131
222
9.4
2353
2225
128
5.4
2353
2191
162
6.9
2353
1732
621 26.4
Section D Business Performance and Competitive Situation
MONTH
A10a.Accounting year ending....MONTH
2500
2406
94
3.8
YEAR
A10b.Accounting year ending....YEAR
2500
2411
89
3.6
MONTHS
A10c.Does this cover a 12 month period or some other number of months?
2500
2429
71
2.8
TURN
A10d.What was the turnover of the company
2500
1838
662 26.5
EXP
A10e.What was the total amount of your exports
2500
2063
437 17.5
PROF
A10f.And What were your Pre-Tax profits (losses) before deduction of
interest, tax, and directors', partners' or proprietors' emoluments
2500
1143
1357 54.3
2500
2500
0
0.0
PROFCHK A10g.And can I just check is that profit or loss?
AVEMPF
A10h. for this latest financial year what was the Average number of full
time
2500
2421
79
3.2
AVEMPP
A10i.And what was the Average number of Part time employees
2500
2252
248
9.9
LABCOST A12.About what proportion of this business's turnover is accounted for by
2500
1864
636 25.4
TURNCH
2263
2123
140
2263
1981
282 12.5
2263
1854
409 18.1
2263
2175
88
3.9
2263
2114
149
6.6
2263
2133
130
5.7
A11a.Compared to three years ago has Turnover
EXPCH
A11b.Compared to three years ago has Exports
A11c.Compared to three years ago has Pre-Tax profits(losses)before
PROFCH
deduction of interest, tax and directors, partners or proprietors emoluments
AVEMPFC A11d.Compared to three years ago has Average number of full time
H
employees (including working directors)
AVEMPPC A11e.Compared to three years ago has Average number of part time
H
employees
A11f.Compared to three years ago has Wages, salaries and other labour
LCOSTCH
costs
xl
6.2
Variable
name
Variable description
Total sample: 2500
LPRODCH A11g.Compared to three years ago has labour productivity
SALPC1
SALPC2
SALPC3
COMPS
B4a.What proportion of your sales were in Products or services
unchanged or only marginally changed in the last 3 years?
B4b.What proportion of your sales were in Significantly improved products
or services introduced within the last 3 years?
B4c.What proportion of your sales were in New products or services
introduced within the last 3 years?
B1.How many firms do you regard as serious competitors?
B5a.On a scale of 1-5 How is your business currently performing on
Quality of product or service
B5b.On a scale of 1-5 How is your business currently performing on
CURPERF2
Financial performance
B5c.On a scale of 1-5 How is your business currently performing on
CURPERF3
Labour productivity
B5d.On a scale of 1-5 How is your business currently performing on
CURPERF4
Wages, salaries and other labour costs
B2a.Approximately what percentage of your sales last year was
LARGEST
accounted for by...Your single largest Customer?
B2b.Approximately what percentage of your sales last year was
TOP5
accounted for by...Your top 5 Customers ?
B9.Which of the following best describes your growth objectives over the
GROWTH
next 3 years?
CURPERF1
xli
Eligible to Cases
answer included
Missing
(N)
(N)
(N)
(%)
2263
2021
242 10.7
2500
1953
547 21.9
2500
1931
569 22.8
2500
1929
571 22.8
2500
2145
355 14.2
2500
2247
253 10.1
2500
2068
432 17.3
2500
2018
482 19.3
2500
2044
456 18.2
2500
2069
431 17.2
2500
2018
482 19.3
2500
2412
88
3.5
Appendix 4
The Case Studies
xlii
Did not train in 1997 or 1999
“Name” of Company:
A
Size:
B
1-9
C
10-99
D
10-99
E
100-499
F
100-499
G
100-499
1-9
xliii
Company “Name”: A
Interviewee: Managing Director
Date: 28th August 2001
Trained No
1997
Trained No
1999
ID No: 100587
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacture of desiccant products- silica
gel products, or drying agents. They have 7 fulltime employees including
himself, his son and his wife and four non-family members, and no part-time
employees. More than half the staff are long-term employees (of about six
years) and all staff are over 30 years old. To them training is just training on
the job. Some background on the product and its uses is given. It is enough
for their usefulness to them. They do no chemical testing so it is not
necessary to send them on courses in chemistry. They expect intelligence
and numeracy when they appoint and all the training they do is what is
necessary for a small company to go forward. They see no advantage in
implementing Investors in People for a small company like theirs. Time is a
factor even for looking into it.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have no formal business plan. They have one in their head and that is to
leave a viable business for their son to take over. They do not have a human
resources plan. Staff numbers fluctuate. They had 8 staff at the beginning of
the year and one left to go to Spain and there was not enough work to replace
her.
Training is necessary for the performance of their company. They do not have
a budget for training. They are registered with BSENISO 9002 1994 which is a
quality system which started as a British Standard. They are assessed by the
British Standards Institute every 6 months. It is difficult to estimate how long
they take training others - informally all the time. The MD takes decisions
about the level and breadth of training. Being a small firm they talk to each
other all the time. They have no formal management structure.
xliv
NATURE OF TRAINING
As long as staff are intelligent when they come to them that is what is
important. They can all do everything as it is relatively simple- testing through
weighing. The skills are easy and the machines are easy to run. With new
employees they have a brief talk and then they gradually introduce new jobs.
They have difficulty in recruiting staff. They get temporary staff through an
agency for 4 weeks and then if they are happy they take them on.
Management have some training- external courses on exporting- through the
local Chamber of Trade. They have no in-house courses for existing
employees - nor external courses. They largely have continuing training.
There are not many health and safety requirements as the products are
harmless- they do, however, need dust masks.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Training is not really important as the work is so specific and simple. Training
is not affected by the financial position of the firm as time is of the essence.
Training is not important to their competitive position as they have a niche
market. There are no disincentives to training as it is a niche market. He takes
a strategic view of training. Training is assessed by the British Standards
Institute. Training outcomes are assessed.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
They have a niche market and simple, safe tasks therefore training is not
important but what they do carry out is efficiently done. They have very little
formal training (only fork-lift truck training) which is why he said they have no
formal training when he filled in the questionnaires. They do informal on-thejob training.
xlv
Company “Name”: B
Interviewee:
Manager
General
Date: 15th August 2001
Trained No
1997
Trained 1999 No
ID No: 400454
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is producing water based detergents for cleaning.
They have two fulltime employees and 1-2 part-time employees. They do not
have long term staff. They have had turnover of staff in the last twelve
months. The training is specific- largely Health and Safety. Fork-lift truck
training and ADR to drive hazardous goods constitute their external training.
He trains people to do a job for him. He trains people for their own good- it is
a way of putting things back. Today they do not want to go on day release.
They are not involved with Investors in People. He does not know anything
about Investors in People.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
He has no business plan but he knows where he wants to go and what he
wants to achieve. He reacts to events and only after long working at
weekends does he appoint an extra person. He has no H.R. plan, no budget
for training. He can’t quantify training. He is responsible for training and
training provision. Safety is a top priority- health and safety above all. He
misses the old-fashioned factory inspectors. He has only had two factory
inspections since 1981. Ideas for training come from staff and management.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have never tried to recruit trained staff- they are difficult to find. Training
is gradual- not formalised. There is a slow progression from easy to difficult
(handling dangerous chemicals). There are a lot of health and safety external
courses as mentioned above. Old age and life train himself, the manager. It is
all mainly continuing training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Labour market conditions make no difference. Training is done when
necessary. It is not affected by the financial position of the firm. It happens all
the time - it is on-going. It is not really important to their competitive position.
xlvi
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
He thinks training is “jobs for the boys”- generating money. He is cynical about
it. In the old days forklift truck training lasted for one day for £100. Now it is a
5 day course for £600. Today employees don’t want day release courses. He
trains in the safe handling of chemicals himself. He trains to enhance people.
Training is gradual, not formalised. Also increasing of staff is gradual. External
courses are mainly health and safety. Good training improves productivity. He
said “no” to training in 1997 and 1999 because they do not do any formal
training except for what is legally required e.g. fork-lift trucks, Health and
safety etc. They only do on-the-job training which is not structured hence “no”
to formal training in the questionnaire.
xlvii
Company “Name”: C
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 30th July 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 400888
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
The Company is an Iron Foundry. They have 9 full-time employees and one
part-time employee, the Managing Director and his partner. He understands
“training as teaching people to do a job”. They do not train as they have no
new labour and they appoint skilled people if it is necessary. All their
employees are already trained and have been with the company for a long
time. They are not involved with Investors in People.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They do not have a Business Plan; they do not have a Human Resources
Plan; they do not have a budget for training; they do not have a department of
the firm responsible for training as they are too small. The two directors make
the decisions about not to train.
NATURE OF TRAINING
One aspect of training that he was very positive about was the old-fashioned
apprenticeship which lasted for 6 years. There are no apprenticeships at his
firm now but the people working there have had apprenticeships at other
firms. He does not know about the new apprenticeships. He says that the oldfashioned on the job apprenticeships “are the only way to do it”.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
He does not train as he has trained staff who have been there a long time and
if necessary he can appoint trained staff.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A small firm which sees no point in training.
xlviii
Company “Name”: D
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 31st August 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 301964
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is architecture. They have 30 fulltime employees
including himself and 2 part-time employees. Turnover is negligible at the
professional staff end (the architects) - they do not leave until they retire.
Turnover is very small at the junior staff end (4th year and 7th year architecture
students). There are many employees over the age of 50. There are three
types of staff 1) architects 2) architectural technicians and 3) support staff.
The architects have compulsory 35 hours per year continuing education. The
technicians have day release courses but there is none ongoing at the
moment. Support staff has a trainer who comes and does in-house training in
word processing etc. The effect of training on the performance of the
company is vital. (There were financial constraints to training for a few years
e.g. in 1997 and 1999 when they filled in the questionnaire and reported no
training.) They are not involved with Investors in People as they don’t want the
paperwork.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan. They have a Human Resources plan which is the
people part of the business plan. They have a budget for training-1/2% of
turnover. He, the Managing Director, is responsible for training. There are also
bits they get paid for by others-technical products advertising funds 20
seminars per year and also one in-house seminar of their own which they do
per month. The equivalent of one person half-time per year and 10% for onthe-job training is what is necessary. There is also training at the drawing
board. Architects belonging to RIBA (the Royal Institute of British Architects)
have mandatory 35 hours per year continuing education. The law regarding
architecture changes frequently (e.g. the Disability Discrimination Act has
given them a lot more work) and they have to keep up to date with that. The
Board of Directors takes decisions about the level and breadth of training
provision. Training proposals come proactively from management and from
employees - both. They review training of members of staff every two years.
xlix
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have a half day induction course for all new employees. The
professional architects come in qualified and are fully professionally trained.
Management has training as part of the architects’ on-going training.
Regarding external courses, individuals are sent to universities and
construction industry courses. Most of their training is continuing training. A
director of the firm is in charge of health and safety.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They are a private limited Company. They are owned by their employees and
all shareholders are employees (after 2 years) but not all employees are
shareholders. Their biggest problem is keeping up to date with legislation professional indemnity insurance requires that they keep up with legislation on
building regulations, planning law and contract law. Also I.T. training is basic.
Architects are trained to use the firm’s own drawing system in computer-aided
design. Their training provision is not affected by the labour market. Training
is affected by the financial position of the firm as courses are very expensive.
The bit they have to pay for is not affected as it is compulsory. Training is
important to their competitive position - they train to stand still. Of course there
are disincentives to training. They take a strategic view of training - it is part of
the business plan. Training is assessed as part of the biennial review.
Training outcomes are assessed as part of the appraisal system.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
Training is vital to this firm - even legally imperative. But financial constraints
caused them to be not training when we contacted them in 1997 and1999.
l
Company “Name”: E
Interviewee: Chairman
and Managing Director,
and Manufacturing
Director.
Date: 23rd October 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 201406
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacturing of blankets. They have 100
full-time employees and 10 part-time employees. They have 25%-30% very
long serving staff (20+ years) and 25% transient staff. They understand by
training off-site training which is structured and on-site training for which they
use their own people. The training they do is targeted - some in exportdocumentation and in health and safety but no general training. Also if people
are interested in evening classes e.g. I.T. they are sometimes paid for by the
company if it is pertinent.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan, which includes a Human Resources Plan. The
budget for training is really very minimal. Money for training is spent as and
when required. The on-site training is at no financial cost but is a cost in time.
Training is coordinated by the personnel department. A very small percentage
of the appropriate manager’s time is spent on formal training. Regarding
informal training when you are sitting with people, when does training become
management? Such training is very variable but happens all the time
because of the 25% of staff who are transient. Why they said in answering the
questionnaires that they had no training is that they do very little external
formal training. Most of the training is “sitting with Nellie”. The senior
management team take decisions about the level and breadth of training
provision. Training proposals come from both management and from
employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have a very formal induction period run by the personnel manager for 35 weeks for new employees - it is job-related. For existing employees they
have cross-training i.e. on-the-job courses between departments. This is
informal training and leads to flexibility. Regarding the external courses they
send people on, they are supervisory courses, health and safety courses, and
dye house training by suppliers, packaging and waste-disposal regulation
courses, and courses by the British Textile Training Group, Chambers of
Commerce and a firm called Invicta. Employees have continuing in-house
training.
li
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training is affected by labour market conditions - the more difficult it is to
recruit people, the more flexible and better trained existing staff has to be.
They do a lot of cross training for this. There is no unemployment at all in their
area. They have never ever turned down a training course for anybody
because of money. They find that training is absolutely essential to
productivity - indeed to the survival of the firm. Training is important to being
cost-effective and therefore competitive. There are no disincentives to training
- most of their competitors are textile firms in the North and they are too far
away to poach from them. Training goes on routinely. There is no formal
assessment of training - only indirectly do they look at trainers. Training
outcomes are assessed fairly indirectly through bonus schemes etc. They
have no official trainers in the firm - those who train have manufacturing jobs.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This firm does mainly informal in-house training which is why they said on the
questionnaires that they did no formal training.” Sitting with Nellie” type
training is, however, absolutely essential to their productivity.
lii
Company “Name”: F
Interviewee: Managing Director
Date:11th March 2002
Trained
1997
No
Trained
1999
No
ID No: 302104
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
It is a partnership with offices in five towns in the UK. Their main industrial
activity is that they are consulting engineers. They design services
installations for airports, hospitals, offices etc. They have 200 fulltime
employees in the UK and 20 part-time. They have many long-serving staff.
Staff turnover is less than 10% per year. A lot of their training for IT is on-thejob. They also do technical training, Health and Safety training and
Management Training - presentation skills etc. They don’t do Investors in
People but are about to start. They use three of the HRM policies.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a 5 year business plan updated annually and a Human Resources
plan. They have a budget for training. They don’t have an HR Manager- a
partner in Glasgow does it. Training is managed by a partner in London and
he spends 10% of his time on it. The management team in each office takes
decisions on training provision. Training proposals come from management
and from staff at annual appraisals.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They do planned and structured on the job courses. They have exchange
facilities for engineers between their partnerships. They have the continuing
professional development requirements of the engineering institutions- they
have CPD seminars once a week. They need to update employees on new
legislation. They have off-the job courses for management - technical
presentation courses. Management has training. They also have health and
safety courses.
liii
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
He thinks that training has an effect on performance. They are better off
training. They said “no” to training in 1997 and “no” to training in 1999
because the financial partner filled in the questionnaires! They train all new
graduates - engineers. The number of trainees is affected by the market. They
have had no graduate trainees in the office in the past five years - hence the
financial partner’s mistake on the questionnaires. They are taking on 2-4 new
graduates this summer (2002). The financial position of the firm possibly
affects the numbers of external courses. Training is important to their
competitive position and vis-à-vis their clients. There are no disincentives to
training. They use new technology - mainly computer-aided design systems.
Training outcomes are assessed by discussion at appraisals.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This is a medium-sized firm which does a lot of training on and off-the-job but
does not have an HR Manager. It uses a lot of new technology.
liv
Company “Name”: G
Interviewee: Personnel Director
Date: 9th April 2002
Trained
1997
No
Trained
1999
No
ID No: 102114
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
In 2001 company G merged with another company. They assemble high
technology connections and cable assemblies for the professional electronics
industry. They have 146 employees, 9 of these are part time. They have some
long-serving staff. Their staff turnover was 3% until last year when they went
from 230 employees to 146. They do three of the 4 HRM policies.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan. They do not have a Human Resources plan. They
had a budget for training - £5000 in 2000-2001. They have a Personnel
Director, the wife of the Managing Director. So the HRM function is kept within
the family. The Health and Safety manager is responsible for training (1/3 of
his time is spent organising the training.) The directors of the Company and
the managers concerned take decisions about the level and breadth of
training provision. Training proposals come from management and
employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They do induction courses, both on-the-job courses and off-the-job courses,
language courses, and distance learning courses. They support four year
degree courses. The Directors don’t go on management courses but others
do.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They said they didn’t train in 1997 and 1999 because they didn’t then have a
Training Manager for health and safety. This has doubled the training facilities
since the turn of the century. They don’t have difficulty getting staff who
assemble. They have difficulties getting commercial staff with linguistic
knowledge - they have never successfully taught language skills at that level.
They train when the company is doing well. They minimise training when the
company is doing less well. They always do fundamental training but if the
company is doing less well they cut down on “luxuries.” They are never asked
about training when a supplier does an audit. They have a problem with 16-18
year olds whom they are obliged to train and who then leave and become
plumbers. There is a problem of poaching those who are trained to degree
level (they are asked to pay back half the cost of their course if they leave).
She does not think that training affects the bottom line.
lv
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A medium-sized company, which uses a high degree of new technology. They
have kept the HRM function in the family. They have been affected by the
problems in the electronics industry.
lvi
Did train in 1997 and 1999
“Name” of Company:
Size:
H
I
1-9
J
10-99
K
10-99
L
100-499
M
100-499
N
100-499
1-9
lvii
Company “Name”: H
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Yes
Date: 24th July 2001
ID No: 301040
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They are a site-management company. They are a Charitable Company. (The
Department of the Environment gave them a Legacy and other funds come
from private sector operators and rents from hiring out sites for events.) They
have 5 full-time employees and up to 20 part-timers, volunteers, trainees etc.
who are employed on a seasonal basis during the summer. Training is for him
the means of getting staff up to the level of technical skill to deal with the
public. Training is absolutely crucial to their performance as they do very
specialist operations. The company is not connected to Investors in People.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have an annual business plan which is required by their funding (see
above). They do not have a human resources plan. They do not have a
budget for training but spend about 15% of turnover on training annually.
(Turnover varies between £190,000 and £250,000 annually.) There is no
department of the firm responsible for training. The Managing Director
instructs 2 managers and they train. About 20% of the appropriate manager’s
time is spent training others. The Managing Director takes decisions about
training provision. 50% of training is proposed by management and 50% by
employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have an internal induction course for new employees. After six weeks
they have the Welcome Host training scheme of the North West Tourist Board
which teaches Tourism Management for staff and volunteers. They do not do
in-house courses for existing employees as they do not have the staff
resources. Regarding external courses, generally courses are run by industry
umbrella groups such as the CITB (the Construction Industry Training Board)
and the Horticultural Training Association. They are continuing training rather
than induction training.
lviii
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is not affected by labour market conditions at all. Their
training is of paramount importance to their performance. Their training is
always within their means and is not affected by the financial position of the
firm. Most training is health and safety related. Training is therefore always a
necessity. They do not have competitors so training is not important to their
competitive position. There are no disincentives to training as training is very
important to them. He takes a strategic view of training. Training is assessed
only by the managing director himself. Training outcomes are assessed as
part of the annual appraisal process. There is no financial reward for reaching
certain levels of training.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A small firm for which training is of paramount importance.
lix
Company “Name”: I
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 16th August 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 400596
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacturing of electrical process heating
equipment. They have 8 full-time employees and no part-time employees. The
age - structure is varied. They have long-serving staff. The only training they
do is for apprentices (new type). He does not like the new apprenticeships as
they are far too short and not as thorough as they used to be (3 years as
distinct from 6). He understands by training the generation of skilled people.
The company is not involved in Investors in People. He has considered it but
they are not ready for it.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a Business Plan. They do not have a Human Resources Plan.
They train as the need arises. They do not have a strict budget for training i.e.
it is not fixed. Training is loosely budgeted for as it is variable. (At one stage
they had two apprentices at present they have none.) The Managing Director
is responsible for training, its level and its breadth. The amount of time spent
training others can be 1% or 2% but at the moment it is nil. Training proposals
come both from him and from employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have no specific courses for new employees (except a general
introduction) and with the exception of the apprentices. They sometimes
appoint trained staff. They have no difficulties appointing trained staff. They
have no on-the-job courses for existing employees nor in-house courses. Staff
can have external courses if they want. The only type of training which they
have is apprenticeships. He was a member of KADTEL, which was a Keighley
and District Training association but he dropped it a few months ago. He
decided not to have any more apprenticeships as they found they were
training them for other people. They normally take on apprenticeships when
they need them and when they can afford them. The fact that the Government
has recently made firms responsible for sick-pay for apprentices means that
there is no inducement to take on more.
lx
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
His training is affected by labour market conditions. They take on apprentices
if the need is there and when they can afford it. Training is affected by the
financial position of the firm but if they have a need to train they do train.
Training is not important to their competitive position. There is a lot of
poaching in their area and this is a disincentive to training. He does not take a
strategic view of training. Training is assessed by the managing director for
quality and value for money. Training outcomes are assessed. The main
problem is a high ratio of trainees to staff - there are sometimes 2 apprentices
out of 8 staff and if in the end they are poached it is a great loss. Training
does not have a bad effect on the firm’s productivity. Their apprentices are
used during production and produce goods. Training of apprentices is on the
shop floor under the guidance of a skilled man - except for the days they go to
college on a day release scheme.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
He preferred the old apprenticeships. More skilled people emerged from it. He
does not think that the fact that the firm trains really helps their productivity. It
was the principle that they used to have by which they contributed trained
men to industry. They have ceased to do this owing to the lack of
encouragement and the prohibitive costs. Engineering is basically in
recession at the moment. They had a man injured due to a fault of his own
and they now have to pay sickness benefit for him. (This has put up their
costs - it used to be paid for by national insurance.) They therefore
subcontract more than they used to. They could take on more staff but he
sees no point in this.
lxi
Company “Name”: J
Trained
1997
Yes
Interviewee: Financial
Director
Trained 1999
Yes
Date: 11th September
2001
ID No: 101270
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main activity is the manufacture of display and industrial turntables large ones for heavy goods vehicles and small display ones. They have 16
full-time employees and 1 part-time employee (including managers.) Two
years ago they started on the Investors in People track but the paperwork was
a problem for such a small company. They think that their training is of a
reasonable quality to enable the staff to do the work required of them. They
are members of the Engineering Employers’ Federation and Bolton Chamber
of Commerce. The Engineering Employers Federation runs a lot of training on
technical subjects which the company does. It is difficult to make an
evaluation of the effect of training on performance in £s or even in visible
benefits - You can see the benefits of a fork - lift truck course which someone
took recently and also the computer training that was done by everyone else.
He is not so sure about the impact on profitability. Training is really a question
of keeping pace with change - particularly I.T. for the office and health and
safety requirements for direct labour. He understands by training the
education which they give staff to fulfil their roles safely and effectively. Safety
is a big issue in engineering. He hopes that the staff will also benefit
personally from the training. They train anybody - everybody has had some
training in the last eighteen months.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan. They have a human resources plan which is in
the business plan They are struggling with their business plan this year- the
strength of the pound is affecting their exports. They have lost three people
through natural wastage and have not replaced them. They have a budget for
training - £6000 - and grants for training from the government, the
Engineering Employers’ Federation and from Bolton Chamber of Commerce,
Bolton Business Ventures, the T.E.C. etc. They know the sources of grants as
their Managing Director is on various committees and is good at tracking them
down. The Financial Director is responsible for training. Most of their training
is external. He could not say how much time managers spend on training.
They do appraisals once a year and through this they find training needs and
he then finds the necessary training. He takes decisions on the level and
breadth of training. Proposals for training come from both management and
employees also through appraisals.
lxii
NATURE OF TRAINING
On the first morning new employees have an induction course for all new
employees on working conditions and health and safety. They are seen by all
key managers. They have mainly external courses for existing employees very rarely on the job. They sometimes train a few and then get them to train
others (e.g. in I.T.) to save money. The external courses they send people on
are fork - lift truck courses, first aid, and engineering courses through the
Engineering Employers’ Federation. They therefore have both induction
courses and continuing training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They normally have an apprentice in the workshop taken on from school and
are able to train them in their own methods. Their training provision is not
usually affected by labour market conditions. The financial position of the firm
is a consideration with regard to training. They have let some staff go due to
natural wastage and thus they all have to work harder to keep the profits up.
Then there is less time for training. Training is important especially on the I.T.
side but it is not important to their competitive position. One of the minuses of
Investors in People is that training raises people’s expectations and their c.v.
improves and they apply for other jobs. This is - frankly - one of the
disincentives of training. Someone is having his fees paid by the firm to do a
marketing degree in his own time at Bolton Institute at present. He tries to
take a strategic view of training - in the past when the firm was doing better
they did. They try quite hard to get training which is good value for money and
for this they rely on the providers which they chose through recognised
routes. He tries to assess training outcomes but they may be poor at this.
They find that evaluating the effect of training on productivity is difficult.
Management is also trained - in I.T. He thinks that they are better off training
than not training. Recently he has tried less to get grants for training but the
funding has dried up considerably. He no longer has a single source to go to
for funding for training as he used to have at the T.E.C.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This is a firm which has had a lot of external training and funding. It has also
had a lot of enthusiasm for training. Now however it has less time for training
because they are not doing so well. There are also fewer sources of training
grants.
lxiii
Company “Name”: K
Interviewee: Chief
Executive
Date: 21st August 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 201551
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is that they are an enterprise agency - i.e. they
give advice on business start-ups. They have 6 full time and 2 part-time
employees. About half have been there for over three years and they are in all
age brackets from 21-55 years old. Some are new recruits because of growth
and mergers. She understands by training ensuring that people have the skills
to do the job, developing people to fulfil greater roles in the organisation,
enabling people to do the job more efficiently (e.g. I.T. training). They train
according to need. They don’t have a policy of everyone being trained for
training’s sake. They do a training needs analysis on everybody. Sometimes
the effect of training on business performance is measurable. Sometimes you
find that you have a more motivated member of staff. It may not always
improve productivity but it improves motivation. On the whole you are better
off training rather than worse off. They implement Investors in People - it is a
contractual obligation for them. At the time they did it they thought it was
inappropriate - they had only three members of staff. It was however a very
useful process to go through as it leads to a more motivated staff and good
practice.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan. They do not have a human resources plan which
forecasts staff requirements, numbers etc. They grow as necessary. They
work through a portfolio of subcontractors and fill resource gaps through
subcontractors as opposed to taking on a new permanent member of staff.
When there is a lot of work they take on a full member of staff to manage the
subcontractors and that has a knock-on effect on the number of
subcontractors. They do not have a budget for training. The chief executive is
responsible for training. At present 20-25% of her time is spent training a new
member of staff. She takes decisions about the level and breadth of training
provision. Training proposals come from management and from employees they have an open policy.
lxiv
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have internal induction courses for new staff. They also have external
First aid and Managing Safely Courses (an Institute of Safety and Health
course) for existing employees. Training needs analysis decides whether inhouse courses are held. One of the project managers (one level below her) is
at present attending a course on Developing Leadership Skills. Most of the
courses are continuing training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions. When budgets
get tight training is one of the first things to go. They do not cease to train
employees when there are low levels of unemployment in case they are
poached as they have a good name for developing people. They train when
the company is doing well. They are a not for profit agency therefore they are
reinvesting in service delivery. Training is important for their competitive
position. Provided you get the training right there is no disincentive to training.
Sometimes the best training may not be off the shelf training. She takes a
strategic view of training. Training is assessed for impact on the person and
the job by the CEO. She makes sure people can implement what they have
learnt when they are back on the job. Training outcomes are assessed. They
do not pay high salaries. Therefore people are given training to make it
worthwhile.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
An advocate of training and Investors in People. “Sometimes the effect of
training on business performance is measurable”.
lxv
Company “Name”: L
Interviewee: Manager
Responsible for quality
and personnel
Date: 25th July 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 101812
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacture of gravure printing cylinders.
They have 110 fulltime employees and 2 part-time employees. What she
understands by training is “making the employees aware of the job, the
company policies and health and safety issues as a basic, and improving the
skills base.” They train to ensure that operations are carried out properly there are legal requirements for things like forklift trucks etc. Also they train for
employee satisfaction. The company is not involved in Investors in People as
Ms T. (the interviewee) has only recently been appointed and they previously
did not know about it.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING.
They do not have an official Business Plan. They do not have a Human
Resources Plan but they do have skills matrices. They do not have a budget
for training. Training is related to quality management and Ms T. keeps the
training records. 20% of the appropriate manager’s time is spent training
others. They have many long-serving members of staff and training policy
may change when new staff is needed. Ms T. takes decisions about the level
and breadth of training provision. They do get some suggestions about
training from employees but most proposals about training come from
management.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They provide an initial induction course for new employees. The majority of
the on-the-job courses come from the skills matrix for that department. They
have no in-house courses for existing employees so far but she is setting
them up e.g. audit training. The external courses which they provide for
existing employees are software programmes, forklift truck courses, first aid
and health and safety courses. They are largely induction courses.
lxvi
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Training provision is affected by the labour market. The Managing Director
spends more on training when the company is doing well and reduces training
in bad years like 2000. Training is important to their competitive position.
Training is not assessed at present but needs to be. Training outcomes also
need to be assessed. She thinks that training does affect performance as it
means that workers make fewer mistakes and are more aware. She is not
aware of any disincentives to training. She takes a strategic view of training.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A large company which is reviewing its involvement with training.
lxvii
Company “Name”: M
Interviewee: HR Manager
Date: 7th March 2002
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained
1999
Yes
ID No: 302074
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is dealing with property. It is a partnership. They
have 290 full-time and 22 part-time employers. They have long-serving staff
and a low turnover of staff. The average age is 41 for women and 42 for men.
Training is carried out to meet the firm’s objectives and to develop people’s
careers. They are already accredited by Investors in People - recognition
publicly for how they deal with people and leverage for the Human Resources
Manager to deal with skills, people and appraisals and link it to the firms
objectives. They use total quality management and performance related pay.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan and an HRM plan. They have a Human Resources
Manager. They have a budget for training (about 1% of turnover). The HR
Manager spends 10% of his time organising training. He takes decisions
about the level and breadth of training. Training proposals come from
management and also from employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
New employees are trainees for three or more years. They have on-the-job
courses - both planned and structured and “sitting with Nellie” They also have
off-the-job courses. They have courses which are Continuing Professional
Development. Management has training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They train as high professional standards affect a firm’s reputation. Training
makes people more productive. They teach them time management,
presentation and interviewing skills. It is difficult to get the right calibre of
people. They have no problem with poaching. Training is important to their
competitive position. They train to get ahead of competitors.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
An HR Manager who uses Investors in People to gain leverage to link skills,
people and appraisals to the firm’s objectives.
lxviii
Company “Name”: N
Interviewee: Managing
Director, Chairman
Date:21st March 2002
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained
1999
Yes
ID No: 401978
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They are marine and industrial electrical engineers. They have 200-250 fulltime employees and 3 or 4 are part-time. They have long-serving staff, some
having done 50 or 40 years service. They have a low staff turnover. They
have 34 apprentices (many of whom do 4 year apprenticeships) and also less
well qualified young people on a 7 year slow track training scheme who do
City and Guilds. At the end of the apprenticeships they either go on the
technical route to become engineers or on the managerial route to become
foremen. The firm does not do Investors in People - the bureaucracy is too
bad. They do the complete HRM bundle of 4 policies. They are also training
two accountants.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They say that training really begins after people do HNCs and that the
Government has to recognise the importance of managerial training. They
have a Business plan. They do not have a Human Resources plan. It is a
continuous process in HRM as they are contractors. They review their plans
on a monthly basis. They do not have an HR manager. The MD and the
Chairman are responsible for training. They spend half a day per week
training others and they make the decisions about training provision and also
the proposals for training in the main.
NATURE OF TRAINING
The firm does both off-the-job and on-the-job courses. Their on-the-job
courses are both planned and structured and “sitting with Nellie”. The MD
likes continuing courses. He does not like intensive courses. Some of the offthe-job courses are with manufacturers re equipment. They do very many
different types of courses. Management has training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
The negative aspect of a stable workforce is that some people feel that they
do not need training - they are happy to jog along as they are. The MD and
the Chairman think that training is definitely linked to performance and that
they are better off training. They train to fill gaps in labour shortages. There
are shortages in approved electricians, test engineers, supervisors and
project managers. Training is important to their competitive situation and they
train to get ahead of competitors.
lxix
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A medium-sized firm which does not have an HR Manager – the family
owners carry out this function. They are very enthusiastic trainers.
lxx
Did not train in 1997 – Did train in 1999
“Name” of Company:
O
Size:
1-9
P
1-9
Q
1-9
R
1-9
S
10-99
T
10-99
U
100-499
V
100-499
W
100-499
lxxi
Company “Name”: O
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 27th July 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 200189
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
The company’s main industrial activity is commercial industrial warehousing,
that is they fit out warehouses with racking systems and display systems.
They have 5 full-time employees. They have himself and his two sons who
are always there and two others well known to him. He trains and uses
apprenticeships and hands on experience. He does the training and plans it.
He does his own training as “there are too many fools in the outside world”
and “you want people to do business your way”. He has no apprentices now.
The company is not involved with Investors in People.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have no Business Plan, no Human Resources Plan and they have no
budget for training. There is no Department responsible for training as they
are too small. The Managing Director himself organises training. He spends
80% of his time training for the first 12 months of a new employee’s time and
then an average of 40% of his time over the next four years. The Managing
Director takes decisions about the level and breadth of training provision.
Training proposals come proactively from management.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They provide NVQ courses in conjunction with the Construction Industry
Training Board for new employees, and on-the-job and in-house courses for
existing employees. They provide no external courses for existing employees.
He does not take a strategic view of training. Training is not assessed nor are
training outcomes assessed. He maintains that the old apprenticeship system
was right. He did 6 years.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
He maintains that there has always been a skills shortage since they did away
with the old-fashioned apprenticeships. They train when the company is doing
well and they have also trained when the company is doing less well. Training
is not important to their competitive position. The disincentive to training is
money - it is a “drain on resources”. He does not worry about newly trained
staff being poached by other firms as there are himself and his two sons and
two other employees who are well known to him - “3/5 are always going to be
there.”
lxxii
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
One of many small businesses who prefer the old apprenticeships to the new
ones. The bare minimum of training is done in order to survive. Actually the
MD does spend 80% of his time in the first year of a new employee’s time
showing him how to do things and 40% over the next four years. They
produce work between them as he does this training so they never stop
producing. In 1999 someone new started to work with them – thus he started
training. In 1997 no one was new therefore there was no training.
lxxiii
Company “Name”: P
Interviewee: Director
Date: 30th August 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 202383
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacturing of air-conditioning
equipment. They have long serving staff and very little turnover of staff. Ages
are from 45 years down to 16 years. They don’t have apprenticeships - they
train to suit their own needs. Two young men attend technical college on day
release to learn sheet metal work and welding in Huddersfield. Their course
fees are paid by Kirklees Industrial Training, a local body which organises
courses, and the firm pays their wages for the day. He finds it best to train
someone straight from school so that they learn his ways of working. He
thinks training improves productivity to a degree but it is something they
cannot really measure. He thinks they are better off training because it makes
them more capable of carrying out complex tasks. He thinks that there is a
link between training and better business performance. He is not involved with
Investors in People because he tries to keep paperwork down to a minimum.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
He has been in business for 35 years and his aim is profit at the end of the
week. He does not have a business plan. He does not have a human
resources plan. He recruits if they are snowed under with work. He does not
have a budget for training. He is responsible for training. He does not spend
much time training - how to do the job does not take much picking up. He
makes decisions about the level and breadth of training provision. Training
proposals come from management - not from employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
He does not really have difficulties recruiting trained staff. The work is semiskilled - not fully skilled work. For new employees they provide mainly
induction courses and the external training mentioned above on welding and
sheet metal work (day release). On-the-job and in-house courses for existing
employees are not necessary. Management has no training. They do health
and safety courses because of the factory inspector and the Kirklees Training
facility.
lxxiv
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is not affected by labour market conditions. Training is
not affected by the financial position of the firm - they train when necessary.
Training is not important to their competitive position. There are no
disincentives to training - there is no poaching because they work out in the
country. He does not take a strategic view of training. Training is not
assessed. Training outcomes are not assessed. The day release courses
benefit the firm and also the employees. Their work is too simple for
apprenticeships.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This is a small firm out in the country which only does semi-skilled work so a
lot of training is unnecessary. However he trains young new recruits on a day
release basis to help the firm and the employees. In 1997 when he said “no”
to formal training he did not have a young person as a trainee doing NVQs at
Huddersfield Technical College. He had nobody needing training in 1997.
lxxv
Company “Name”: Q
Interviewee: Managing
Director and Wife (Mr and
Mrs D.)
Date: 22nd August 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 200347
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They are a design company and a print broker. They have four full-time
employees and no part-time staff. They have reasonably long serving staff
and no significant turnover of staff. They are committed to training, improving
both technical skills and personal skills. This benefits the individual member of
staff and the company. They train to develop the business and also they find it
increases commitment of staff. They train managers as well, themselves
included. They did not do a lot of training previously in 1997 but there were
only two of them then. As they grew they felt the need for training and then
they chose to do Investors in People. Initially they got Business Link money
for training. Then the Chamber of Commerce suggested that as they were
training they should do Investors in People. As a small business they would
never have been able to afford the costs of the training without this help from
Business Link. It was quite intense and involved a considerable amount of
money over a small period of time.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They do have a business plan which came out of Investors in People. They do
not have a Human Resources plan. They do not have a budget for training.
They train according to need. Mrs D. is largely responsible for training (she is
a former teacher) and Mr D. discusses it with her. The percentage of the
manager’s time spent training others varies. When they are busy they don’t
train. When they are quiet they have time for training. Mr D. takes decisions
about the level and breadth of training and training proposals come from
management and employees alike. They keep skills matrices.
NATURE OF TRAINING
Regarding on-the-job courses, if one of the managers goes on a course, they
pass the knowledge on to the team. Management do have training
themselves. They have a plan for special courses for new employees.
Training is ongoing. They have technical courses for existing employees and
also designer (creative) courses. They also teach health and safety.
lxxvi
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They have to match their time to funding. Labour market conditions have not
affected training. Their financial position did use to affect training in 1997 but
now they have enough funds to train. They train when the company is doing
well. They would never cease training but they might cut back. Training is
important to their competitive position but they don’t actively think of
competition. Training improves their productivity. Having the time to train is a
very important issue. They take a strategic view of training. Training is
assessed by both of them. Training outcomes are assessed. Business Links
and the chamber of commerce help them with funding. They usually match
time with funding - a value is put on their time.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A firm which has been inspired to train by Investors in People and Business
Links/ Chamber of Commerce funding. They think that training affects
productivity.
lxxvii
Company “Name”: R
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 23rd August 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 300767
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
The firm’s main industrial activities are 1) sprayers for concrete mould release
agents, 2) ink and laser – jet toners (they sell remanufactured ones), 3)
general engineering. He has two full-time employees and two part-time
employees. The full-time staff are his daughter who has been his secretary
since 1984 when he started and a machiner cum turner (an engineer). The
part-timers are a fireman in his spare time and a retired gentleman who
started last week. They are too small in many respects to train anybody. It
takes about two years to give people the practical knowledge they require.
Therefore it is difficult to train youngsters in engineering. Being a small
company they have difficulty paying them a very good wage and then they
find that they would lose them anyway. He thinks it is very difficult for small
companies to take on apprentices. Therefore he thinks he is better off with
experienced personnel. He is disabled and limited to sitting at a desk. They
buy old machines from the scrap yard and refurbish them and then export
them e.g. to the Isles of Scilly. He understands by training sitting down with
people and discussing with them how to approach the job. The work is very
varied. They have no choice but to train people because next month there
may not be any work. He has not heard of Investors in People.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
He does not really have a business plan. He is alert to see what is out there to
get involved in. They started remanufacturing the ink and laser cartridges
because it is something he can do, being disabled. He does not have a
human resources plan which forecasts staff requirements. The number of
employees depends on the available work. He does not have a budget for
training. Training is really alerting them to problems. The MD is responsible
for training and it takes about 10% of his time. He also takes decisions about
the level and breadth of training provision. If the staff have a problem they
come to him for advice.
lxxviii
NATURE OF TRAINING
They are not big enough to provide courses for new employees. He trained a
young man twice and it gave him some pleasure that he was educating
somebody - passing on his skills. But the last time he did this they went into a
recession and he had to get rid of him just when he was becoming useful after
18 months. They have difficulties recruiting trained staff. Training for existing
employees is informal. Management does not really have any training. With
the cartridges they have learnt as they went along, learning from their
mistakes. Regarding external courses, when he set up the work on the
cartridges he paid a consultant to train them on how to sell them. That cost
him £1000. They work on such a variety of things that they rely on experience.
They have never had any Health and Safety training. His experience tells him
that they have to have a certain safety level in the equipment.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions. Training is
affected by the financial position of the firm - they get extra staff if the
company is doing well. They do not train when the company is doing less well.
Training is not important to their competitive position. His experience as an
engineer is important for this. Poaching is a disincentive to training. He has
got to make things work as he is disabled and nobody else would employ him.
Regarding strategy - if he gets new ideas and if he goes into another form of
work like the cartridges, he would train. It is worth learning about a certain
aspect. With the cartridges they learnt as they went along.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A small firm that struggles. “Training” is really hand to mouth self instruction
and is affected by new ideas for work as in 1999. They trained in 1999
because they were training for a specific new job - the laser jet toners. They
did not do anything new in 1997 hence “no” to training in the questionnaire.
lxxix
Company “Name”: S
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 13th September
2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 302801
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is speciality chemicals; they supply products to
the aircraft industry and electronics; they have a reprographics business; and
a holding company which controls assets, property and investments - four
businesses in a group with two overseas subsidiaries. They have 45 full time
employees and 6 part-time. At present they lose 3-4 people per year. The age
range is 18-60 and the majority are under 45. He thinks training is important
because we live in a world that is complex and changing quickly and it is
important that people are updated so that they can do their job effectively. It is
very difficult to get staff in his part of the country as there is nearly full
employment. He was asked about the effect of training on performance. He
says that training is valuable because everything is very customer oriented quality is absolutely crucial so having trained staff is important to the
performance of the firm. They are not involved in Investors in People as it
makes a lot of work and the benefits are marginal. They were training in 1999
but not in 1997 because they got new computer systems in 1999 and new
staff.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
He has a business plan. He does not have a Human Resources plan outside
the Business Plan. His budget for training is probably1.5-2% of turnover. Each
of the four general managers is responsible for the staff and the development
of the staff. They have not quantified the percentage of the appropriate
manager’s time spent training others. The Managing Director and the
managers take decisions about the level and breadth of training provision.
Training proposals come from both management and employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have an induction course which lasts from 5 to 8 working days. They
assess employees and they then send them off to do external courses in I.T.
etc. Some technical training is done on-the-job but time is a big factor in a
small firm. They have both induction courses and continuing training. They
have a Health and Safety Officer who works with the staff on an ongoing
basis.
lxxx
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions as it is difficult
to recruit trained staff and therefore you have to train yourself. Training is
affected by the financial position of the firm but not significantly. They have an
ongoing programme. Training has become increasingly important to their
competitive position i.e. to their remaining in business - hence training in
1999. Poaching is a significant issue and is a disincentive to training. He takes
a strategic view of training as he thinks that training is necessary because
everything is becoming so complex. Training is assessed but only informally.
Training outcomes are assessed by the general manager and at a monthly
review by the Managing Director.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A Managing Director who thinks that training is necessary because the world
is becoming so complex.
lxxxi
Company “Name”: T
Interviewee: Chairman
Date: 29th August 2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 202103
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is supplying castings to any company from the
Queen to an OAP who wants a front-room grate, including shipbuilding, oil
work, construction work. They have 12 full-time and 3 part-time employees
(including himself). He has been in the trade for 45 years and staff have been
there for 20 years to three or four years. They have had no turnover of staff
for the last three years. When a new person comes they are given a full
induction course and a personal training plan. He says that you can’t poach a
skilled foundry man - a skilled foundry man will stay for life. If you try to poach
from another firm you end up poaching someone else’s garbage. In their
business you only get paid for the good castings which come out - this is one
of the headaches. They have induction training and then three years intensive
training and then they would learn by experience. They have always trained (1997 was a hiccough when they did not have a trainee and when they were
not drawing any government grants for training). He was on the National
Training Board. In the 1980s they had their own trainees there, but they
discontinued this as the trainees would go to their competitors. Now they pay
a trainee an enhanced rate of pay while training in order that they stay. Since
the training boards were scrapped there has been nothing put in their place.
He thinks that Investors in People is a load of eyewash.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
He has a business plan. He has a human resources plan. He has a budget for
training but can’t give figures (his son has financial control and technical
control). The government does not pay for training anymore so they have cut
back on training. He is responsible for training. He spends 40% to 50% of his
time training others. He decides about the level and breadth of training
provision. He is always open to suggestions about training from employees.
He thinks that training is vital for the performance of the firm. He says that you
have to train properly or you lose a lot of money.
lxxxii
NATURE OF TRAINING
For new employees they have a three year induction course. They have to
train them from scratch. Then for existing employees there is constant
vigilance on their progress within the company. He is disgusted by the attitude
of the training College in Barking in Essex. He prepares trainees for City and
Guilds examinations for one evening a week in the company and during the
day in the firm. They belong to the Engineering Employers’ Federation which
has a training centre for managers in Sudbury. They have health and safety
courses as this issue requires continuous vigilance.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Training provision is affected by labour market conditions. Training is not
affected by the financial position of the firm. They are never worried about the
financial side - they have a niche market and bespoke customers. Training is
very definitely important to their competitive position. Old Government
Training Boards trainers were very good. He definitely takes a strategic view
of training. They assess training and make sure that they get value for money.
He assesses it. Training outcomes are also assessed.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A successful company with a niche market that thinks that training is vital to
the company’s performance. They did not train in 1997 because they were not
drawing any grants for training. They also had nobody needing training in
1997.
lxxxiii
Company “Name”: U
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 10th September
2001
Trained
1997
No
Trained 1999
Yes
ID No: 102269
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
It is a 90 year-old firm and the fourth generation is running it. They are
clothing manufacturers. They have 82 full-time employees including the office,
14 part-time and 5 managers. It is hard to get people to come into the trade
but it is better now than it was. Most of his staff is long-serving and they have
people of all ages from early 20s to retiring age. They train all who are not
already trained and they train machinists in their own methods - on-site
training. He says that despite saying they did not train in 97, they train all the
time. They are not implementing Investors in People but they are trying to get
government support through the British Clothing Industry Association.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan for getting this grant. They run the business with
the minimum of staff. They don’t really have a budget for training - they train
according to need and set money aside for it (sic). The managers and people
in charge of each section do the training which is mainly on-the-job training.
The amount of the appropriate manager’s time spent training others varies
because of the new styles of clothing etc. The factory manager and the two
ladies in the trouser room and jacket room organise the training. Training
proposals come from management and employees put forward ideas too.
NATURE OF TRAINING
It is important to hang on to employees and to get some from firms that are
closing down. New employees are taught on-the-job in the cutting room or the
pressing room. It is mainly continuing training. Management do not really have
training as they are very skilled. A lady trains in Health and Safety.
lxxxiv
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
There is always a shortage of workers so training provision is affected by the
labour market. Training is affected by the financial position of the firm - they
must be able to afford to train. Training is important to their competitive
position. There are no longer disincentives to training as there are so few
firms left to poach. He takes a strategic view of training. Training is not
assessed. Training is to everyone’s advantage - to the individual’s and also to
the firm’s. Regarding pay - they have a running in period when their pay is
protected just after they have finished their training and after that they have as
an incentive a piece rate of pay. He is desperate for funding as the clothing
trade is in a very bad state of decline. They are having to import garments but
they also do the initial smaller runs in the U.K. so they are still in business.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This is a longstanding firm in the clothing industry - an industry which is in a
very bad state of decline. They are desperate for funding and struggle to
survive. Their training is mainly on-site.
lxxxv
Company “Name”: V
Interviewee: Quality Manager
Date: 20th March 2002
Trained
1997
No
Trained
1999
Yes
ID No: 303046
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is that they are property consultants on the
construction side. Their main business is a partnership but they also have two
limited companies. This summary only deals with the partnership. They have
130 full-time employees and 6 part-timers. They have long-serving staff - and
a low staff turnover (they lost 10 and gained 16 employees in the last year).
As employees they have architects, surveyors, arbitrators, planningsupervisors and CAD technologists. He thinks that everything comes down to
training. They don’t do Investors in People. They practice 2 of the HR policies.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
Because of the professional makeup of their work-force they do a lot of
continuing professional development compulsorily. They have a business plan
and a human resources plan and have forward planning for recruitment. For
training each person is allowed £100 and a day’s leave. Otherwise there is no
budget for training. They have recently acquired a HR Manager. They are
trying to recruit a trainer- especially for IT. Each group leader decides about
training provision. Proposals for training come from managers and
employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They do many types of training - in fact all types, on-the-job and off-the-job
(for all the professionals) also courses on quality assurance, health and safety
and the environment, NVQs and City and Guilds. Management do not have as
much training as they ought to. Surveyors are not taught to manage but they
need to be as they are at the top.
lxxxvi
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
People are better off being trained in terms of the individual but the firm loses
time and it costs money. They said they did not train in 1997 because they
were not nearly as active then - individuals took care of themselves now
middle managers take care of staff and the £100 is formalised. They have
difficulties in recruiting trained staff. But they are good at training up their own
staff. Head-hunting of staff, as distinct from poaching, takes place but leads to
good relations with other practices. They train to get ahead of competitors.
They are a one stop shop therefore they train. Some people avoid training as
middle-management have to earn fees for a certain amount of their time. They
use a lot of new technology for design etc. The managing partner has a lot of
foresight and this feeds down. He takes a strategic view of training.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This is a medium-sized firm which has just recently appointed an HR manager
and intends to appoint a trainer soon - to teach IT especially. Assessment of
training will follow.
lxxxvii
Company “Name”: W
Interviewee: Training Officer
Date: 17th April 2002
Trained
1997
No
Trained
1999
Yes
ID No: 202533
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They are a transport planning consultancy. They have 190 full-time
employees in the UK and 4-5 part-timers. Their staff turnover is low. She
thinks it is necessary to individuals and the business to develop people.
Training also acts as an incentive so that they can keep people as they are
interested in their development. They intend to do Investors in People in the
future. They do one of the HRM policies.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have 11 groups - each group has a business plan and runs as an
autonomous business. Each group has a training budget. They have an HR
manager but the Training Officer is responsible for training and does some
performance reviews. The board sets priorities for training. Training proposals
come proactively from management and employees also put suggestions
forward. Training is a relatively new development in their firm - her post is only
one year old.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They do on-the-job courses – “sitting with Nellie” and planned and structured
ones. This is mainly coaching about projects. Management has training. They
do some off-the-job courses - and some continuing courses and distance
learning courses.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They have become more interested in the training as the company grew,
hence “no” to training in 1997 and “yes” to training in 1999. Recruiting trained
staff is not easy as all the transport consultants must have a first degree and
most have specialist masters degrees or PhDs. They target places that do
masters courses in transport. They train to keep up with clients rather than to
get ahead of competitors. They use new technology a lot. A disincentive to
training is time. Training is not really assessed - but that is why she wants to
do Investors in People.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
They are recruiting to expand the company. Proving that training is beneficial
is the main problem and getting the consultants to find time is another. She
thinks that training if it is right improves performance.
lxxxviii
Did train in 1997 – Did not train in 1999
“Name” of Company:
X
Size:
1-9
Y
1-9
Z
1-9
AA
10-99
AB
10-99
AC
10-99
AD
100-499
AE
100-499
AF
100-499
lxxxix
Company “Name”: X
Interviewee: Director
Date: 29th October 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 200187
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is to line furnaces, boilers, kilns and heaters.
They have 8 full-time employees including himself and 2 part-time. They are a
specialist firm and therefore they train internally. They also employ external
trainers for I.T., Health and Safety and Mechanical Equipment training. Health
and safety has to be done every third year and the handling of mechanical
equipment has to be done every 2nd year. In the questionnaires they said yes
to 1997 and no to1999 regarding formal training. This was because they were
all fully trained formally in 1999 and they returned to their refresher courses in
mechanical handling and health and safety in 2000. They consider that it is
necessary to train as it affects their productivity. The company has never
looked into Investors in People nor been approached about it.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They do not have a Business Plan. They do not have a Human Resources
Plan as their trade is traditionally a hiring and firing one - they hire 40 extra
employees when necessary e.g. this summer. It is impossible to predict how
much work there will be. They do not really have a budget for training. The
Director arranges it. The appropriate manager or supervisor spends 10-15%
of their time throughout the year training others. The Managing Director takes
decisions about the length and breadth of training provision. Training
proposals come both from management and from employees. They do a lot of
informal training by letting the employees watch what they do, then observe
and correct them. They constantly reassess people’s skills.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have a very brief induction course for all new employees about health
and safety and what they are to do. They have a pool of trained employees
who are used by a group of companies. Most people who are employed would
already be trained. It is only very rarely that they get people who are not
trained. They have on-the-job courses on their own techniques. They have
external courses on mechanical equipment and health and safety. Their
courses are mainly continuing training.
xc
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training is not affected by labour market conditions. Training is not
affected by the financial position of the firm as it is necessary. Training is very
important to their competitive position. There are no real disincentives to
training. He takes a strategic view of training - most people have their own
particular skill. Training is assessed and training outcomes are assessed.
Management has no training as their training is sufficient. Training does affect
productivity. Their training is not formal but very informal - hence how they
filled in the questionnaire in 1999.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
Another small firm which mainly does informal training but considers training
fundamental to productivity.
xci
Company “Name”: Y
Interviewee: Partner
Date: 16th October 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 100455
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacturing of venetian blinds. They
have 21 full-time employees and two part-time employees. Thus they have
expanded. They understand by training standing with them and showing them
their methods of working. The partners show them how to do it so that there is
no dilution of their methods. They are looking for quality and therefore training
affects the performance of the firm. They have a low turnover of people who
stay but of those they get from agencies they have a high turnover. They are
not involved in Investors in People but his partner is looking at it as they have
a problem with staff.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan as they want to double to fifty employees in two
years. Therefore staff and training are important. They need 6 or 7 more
people at present and it is difficult to get the right calibre of people. They do
not have a human resources plan. They are at a crossroads and they need a
meeting about staffing. They do not have a budget for training - they train
according to need. The two partners are responsible for training. 20% of the
appropriate managers’ time is spent training others. Training proposals come
from both management and employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
The courses they offer for new employees consist of just standing with them
and showing them how to do the work. They are actually making products
from day one - so training for them is definitely in-house. They work with
business link and the office girls have external I.T. training. Their courses are
mainly continuing training.
xcii
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions - they have to
train new workers. Training is not really affected by the financial position of
the firm. They need to pay more for people of the right calibre. They don’t train
management - they just talk amongst themselves. Training is important for
their competitive position in that it affects quality which is important to them as
leaders in a cottage industry. There are no disincentives to training and no
poaching in their area as they have a niche market and an exceptionally quick
turn around. They do take a strategic view of training. Training is not
assessed but training outcomes are assessed and if necessary they teach
employees again.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
This is a leading edge company with a niche market in a cottage industry.
Training of the “sitting with Nellie” type is of paramount importance to their
performance. He said in the questionnaires that they trained in 1997 but not in
1999. 1999 was just a hiccough in their training - they do have a policy of
training.
xciii
Company “Name”: Z
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 26th July 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 100608
Size: 1-9
GENERAL QUESTIONS
His main industrial activity is plans and accessories for do-it-yourselfers who
make rocking horses, cars for children, dolls houses, puppets etc. He has 7
full-time employees and 6 part-time employees. For him training ensures that
workers know every aspect of the work they are expected to carry out. He
trains because it is a specialised business. His firm is not involved with
Investors in People.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a Business Plan. They do not have a Budget for Training nor a
Human Resources Plan. They are too small to have a department of the firm
responsible for training. The General Manager and the Managing Director
take decisions about the level and breadth of training provision. Training
proposals come from management. Training is carried out as the employees
work. If there is a problem carrying out the work or if there is a new machine
in the workshop they train.
NATURE OF TRAINING
There are no courses for new employees and no on-the-job courses for
existing employees. There are, however, practical in-house courses for
existing employees - continuing training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions - as not many
new employees have been trained. They train when the company is doing
well and also when the company is doing less well. Training is important to
their competitive position. He finds that there are disincentives to training i.e.
people he has trained have gone away and done similar work elsewhere for
themselves. He does not take a strategic view of training. Training is not
specifically assessed but training outcomes are.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A craft industry - training can result in employees going off and starting up in
their own right. Training is done as they work and according to need. They
had no new equipment and no new staff in 1999 therefore they did not need
to train then.
xciv
Company “Name”: AA
Interviewee: Works and
Cremator Division Director
Date: 15th October 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 201237
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They design and build bespoke specialised high temperature furnaces e.g. for
the aerospace industry, for industrial ceramics and fire test research furnaces
and cremators. They have 55 full-time employees and 2 part-time employees.
They have a very low turnover of labour and a very well scattered age range
with an average of 45-50 years. Because of the nature of the work and it
being bespoke, they tend to do a reasonable amount of training. They need
training all the time as for example, many of their staff are Corgi Gas
Specialists and they send them to the registered training organisations. They
try to recruit trained staff from their own industry but the furnace industry has
been decimated and therefore they have to train new staff. They also have to
train their own staff to keep up with legislative changes. For example in 2002
there will be a change in existing environmental law and they may need to
increase in size by 30%. This will involve more training. Therefore it can be
seen that training is fundamental to their productivity. At any one time they will
have 4-5 people doing personal training in their own time which the firm
subsidises by paying tuition fees. They don’t have any apprentices at the
moment but they are involved with S.E.T.A. - Stockport Education and
Training Association. They pay two men to train shop floor people. Even
people who are on the design side will initially spend some time, e.g. two
years, on the shop floor. They have written their own modules for refractory
bricklayers with Stockport College. They took three months with a senior
bricklayer and wrote two years of modules. They try not to recruit staff from
outside the U.K. but that is becoming difficult. He is doing very intensive
training in French as they are now exporting to France. Training is essential to
the performance of the company. Each job the company does is very different
from the last so they are on a continuous learning curve. He said that they
trained in 1997 but not in 1999. They had in fact less training in 1999 because
they were doing a lot of work bringing cremators up to environmental
standards in 1997 and their training level went down after that. It peaked in
1997. They have too much work to do to become involved in Investors in
People. They are not large enough to have a training officer.
xcv
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They do not have a Business Plan. They do not have a Human Resources
Plan which forecasts staff requirements including training. They do not have a
budget for training - the directors decide what is needed. The Managing
Director is responsible for the training of the young and the Director does the
shop floor and technical training. The percentage of the appropriate
manager’s time spent training others varies. The two directors take decisions
about the level and breadth of training provision. Training proposals come
from both management and employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
Recently they have not been able to get trained staff. They have made a
tailored training plan for each new employee and job. There are also on-thejob and in-house courses for existing employees. They always keep to the
legal standards - they send people to part-time courses and top-up courses at
Stockport, Oldham and Openshaw Technical Colleges.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions. Training is
affected by the financial position of the firm in that if they are doing well, they
need more people and therefore they train. Training is important to their
competitive position. You just have to accept the disincentives to training - like
poaching. In fact they have little job turnover. They take a strategic view of
training - they look at needs and discuss them at board meetings. Training is
not assessed while it is being carried out but training outcomes are assessed.
You go back to the college that trains well. Management has training
spasmodically as needed. Need is the main criterion for all their training.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A company, with a bespoke product, which needs training nearly all the time
and for which training definitely affects productivity. They train according to
need.
xcvi
Company “Name”: AB
Interviewee: Managing
Director
Date: 12th October 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 201045
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is the manufacture of electronic power
convectors. He is no longer chairman as the company was sold six weeks
ago. He is M.D. The company is now a division of the parent company but is
still a Limited Company in its own right. They have 45 full-time employees
including the MD and 2 part-time employees. They have induction training half a day introduction to the company, its methods and its practices. Then
they have on-the-job training in another department (about a week) then
continuing supervision or on-the-job training in their own department for
weeks or months depending on the job. They encourage day-release courses.
There has been no change at all in training policy despite the fact that the
answers to the questionnaires said trained 1997, did not train 1999. They
trained in both years. They also do health and safety training. They have done
nothing for Investors in People. It seemed a lot of hassle for little benefit.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a Business plan. They do not have an HRM plan. They do not
have a budget for training - it fluctuates according to need. They have
someone responsible for HRM and this person is also responsible for quality.
The amount of time a manager spends training varies from department to
department and is difficult to estimate. The Head of Department and the HRM
Person decide on the training for each individual. From time to time they carry
out retraining for existing staff if there is a change in some process e.g. a new
machine. They involve outside help for these courses - usually the supplier or they go off-site to the suppliers for training. Employees do sometimes put
forward suggestions for courses but they usually come from management.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have difficulties in recruiting trained staff. They have induction courses
to familiarise new staff with their own specific production techniques. It is
unlikely that anyone would have all these skills already. Management do not
get training in management. The only type of external course management
have is in health and safety. In this company employees have both induction
courses and continuing training. The company will pay fees for employees’
evening courses if they are relevant.
xcvii
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training position is not affected by labour market conditions - only by
need. They do worry about poaching by other companies and since the
merger employees, if they leave, have to pay back the cost of their training.
They have long-standing staff (some of 25 years standing) and most are
under 50 years old. Training is not really affected by the financial position of
the firm. They train when the company is doing well and also when it is doing
less well. Training is important to their competitive position in the sense that
the workforce know what they are doing and are effective. Quality is
fundamental to the productivity of the firm and therefore training is. The main
disincentive to training is the time that it takes away from production, design,
testing etc. Time is a much bigger issue than cost. He does not take a
strategic view of training. Training is not assessed. Training outcomes are not
assessed formally but may come up at an appraisal and also at quality review
meetings and HR monthly management team meetings.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
Another firm, like company L, which links quality and HRM in one managerial
job. This is also a firm, which despite being bigger i.e. 10-99, and having an
HRM person, still trains according to need.
xcviii
Company “Name”: AC
Interviewee: Managing
Director and Company
Secretary, Works Manager
and Sales Manager
Date: 9th October 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 200674
Size: 10-99
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is print and design - internet design and display
exhibition boards. They have 14 full time employees including the manager.
Many of the staff have been there for eight years. Most are in their mid-30s to
mid-40s in age. They train people in their own methods to do everything to
produce a printed brochure. There are, however, no young ones at the
moment to train - hence training in 1997 and no training in 1999. There was
no need to train anyone in 1999. For preference they employ people who are
already trained. The Works Manager did a 4 year apprenticeship 20 years ago
and most employees have done that. They think that Investors in People is
geared to factory workers where everybody has a specific job. In their small
business everybody does everything. Most staff came from bigger impersonal
environments to a smaller outfit and a greater variety of work.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
The Managing Director has a Business Plan - survival. They do not have a
Human Resources Plan - when they are busy and need staff, they advertise.
They don’t know about the budget for training (the Works Manager and Sales
Manager at the beginning of the interview). Everybody is responsible for
training - not a special department. It is hard to say how much of anyone’s
time is spent training. The MD and two others are responsible for the level
and breadth of training provision. Training proposals come both from
Management and employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They have no new employees to provide induction courses for. They do
provide on-the-job courses for existing employees - and in-house ones to get
to know the machinery. Managers have one day courses at the Heart of
England TEC. They also have some seminars - it is up to them to decide what
they attend. The type of external courses they provide for employees are St.
John’s Ambulance courses, evening courses on the internet etc.
xcix
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is affected by labour market conditions in that they
train workers who are not trained. They train according to need. For
preference they employ the ready trained. Training is affected by the financial
position of the firm. They train when the company is doing well and do not
train when it is doing less well. Training is important to their competitive
position. They train to keep up with and to get ahead of competitors. They
have not known any disincentives to training. They have not had anyone
poached. They take a strategic view of training. Training and training
outcomes are assessed by the MD.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
If this company gets busy and they have new staff who are untrained, they will
train. They train according to need. For preference they employ the ready
trained. Regarding “Yes” to training in 1997 and “No” to training in 1999. Their
youngest member of staff came in 1997. He took one year to train and
everyone was trained and settled by 1998. Therefore they reported no training
in 1999. Thy also had new printing machinery in 1997 and by 1999 they all
knew how to use it.
c
Company “Name”: AD
Interviewee: Consultant
(retired director)
Date: 6th September 2001
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained 1999
No
ID No: 201324
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They are a bakers and a confectioners. They have 140 employees of which
60-70% are full-time and about 30% are part-time. They have long serving
staff - people stay on. They have no turnover of staff for the bakers but for the
lady packers on the night-shift they have turnover. Training for him is “learning
the job you are employed to do”. If you don’t train you have nothing for the
future. He is very, very interested in training. This is a craft industry and if you
want to move forward you have to train. He thinks training is the backbone of
his business and he trains employees in all sections - the bakery, the kitchen,
where they prepare meat and soups, and the confectionary section. It takes 23 years. Therefore there is more flexibility in the firm. They are not involved
with Investors in People. They did start it but found it a considerable task they would need one person to run the whole scheme. It is a 24 hours
business and there is no time to do the work involved in IiP.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They do not have a business plan on paper but in their heads. They are going
to extend the building and do some exporting - to England! They do not have
a human resources plan but plan on a daily or a weekly basis. They have a
time budget for training not a financial one. There is a lady responsible for
training for the shops and his son is responsible for training on the production
side. The managers spend time training others as circumstances and the
need arise. He, his son, his daughter and the supervisors take decisions
about the level and breadth of training provision. Both management and
foremen put forward suggestions for training. The Scottish Association of
Master Bakers have two training officers who are euro funded and they train
people for SVQs, a Scottish qualification in the theory and practice of baking.
This fits in well with his ideas.
NATURE OF TRAINING
They start from zero skills or perhaps domestic science at school. New
employees have a short induction course and instruction on health and safety.
Then they spend 2 to 3 years learning the work in all the departments. He
recruits those who are genuinely interested. The external courses that existing
employees have is from the Scottish Association of Master Bakers. They also
have a hygiene lady who promotes health and safety. And who also puts up
notices.
ci
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Their training provision is not affected by labour market conditions. Training is
not affected by the financial position of the firm. Training is definitely important
to their competitive position. There are no disincentives to training. Training
improves morale and affects productivity. He takes a strategic view of training.
Training is not really assessed nor are training outcomes assessed. You really
look at people’s performance. He does not think that there is any future in a
craft business like theirs without training.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
Despite the fact that they are committed to training they said that they were
not training in 1999 - that must have been a hiccough. We should really ask
two questions on the questionnaire; 1) Is it your policy to train? 2) Are you
training at present?
cii
Company “Name”: AE
Interviewee: Operations
Manager
Date: 5th March2002
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained
1999
No
ID No: 201423
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Their main industrial activity is manufacturing and importing cleaning products
for the retail market - e.g. sewing cloths etc. The firm is a limited company.
They have 230 full-time employees and an additional 20 part-time (which
fluctuate). They have mainly long-serving staff - a loyal workforce, varied ages
(20-65). They mainly do on-the-job training. They do not do Investors in
People. They do British Standards ISO2000-9000. They employ staff from a
rehabilitation centre in Oldham. They do two of the HRM policies.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They are a member of the Lancashire Textile Manufacturing Association and
get courses from them. They also have courses from the British Safety
Council. They are doing multi-skilling/ job rotation to prevent repetitive strain
injury. The business plan is always changing. They have nothing written
except a company mission statement. They have no HRM plan. The
Operations Manager and a colleague look after HRM - they respond to market
changes without warning. They have no budget for training. They spend 2
days a week or no time per week on training depending on what happens.
Supervisors do training after induction courses. Daniel and the departments
take decisions about the level and breadth of training provision. Training
proposals come proactively from management but they listen to employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
Induction courses, occasionally off-the-job courses for office staff and
management. Mainly “sitting with Nellie”; on-the-job - occasionally planned
and structured on-the-job courses. Off-the-job courses for
supervisors/management. For existing employees: largely “sitting with Nellie”;
occasionally evening classes - languages for sales people and I.T. to a small
extent. More than just health and safety and legal requirements Sometimes
courses are to teach employees to use new machinery or new equipment.
Management has training.
ciii
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
They train because it helps the employees to get working quicker and more
safely. The Operations Manager thinks that it does have an effect on
performance. They are better off training. Trained in 1997 but did not train in
1999 because they took over a new factory in Heywood and concentrated on
marrying the two companies. They have a low turnover of staff so they do not
need to recruit much. Poaching would not happen in their area as their main
competitors are in Rochdale and Leicester. They have to train all the time.
Training is important to their competitive position to produce the goods
properly. Their level of skills is stable over the last three years. There is no
new technology in the factory except for in the administration. They don’t
really take a strategic view of training. External training is assessed; internal
training does not cost a great deal. Training outcomes are assessed by
monitoring pay. Thus they know what level they have got to (pay is largely
performance related).
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A medium-sized family firm which largely does on the job training.
civ
Company “Name”: AF
Interviewee: Personnel
Manager
Date: 3rd April 2002
Trained
1997
Yes
Trained
1999
No
ID No: 301941
Size: 100-499
GENERAL QUESTIONS
They are a packing and distribution company. They have over 300 full-time
employers and 50 part-time employees. They have some long-serving staff.
People either come for a long time or a short time. They have not heard of
Investors in People. They do all four HRM policies.
ORGANISATION OF TRAINING
They have a business plan. They have an ad hoc human resources plan
which swings into action when a new job arises. They do not have a budget
for training, the managers fund what is needed. Each individual manager is
responsible for training. Managers take decisions about the level and breadth
of training provision. Managers also make training proposals usually but they
do listen to employees.
NATURE OF TRAINING
On the administration side the 16-21 year olds study for NVQs (Modern
Apprenticeships) in Word, Excel, etc. On the Heavy Goods vehicles side the
employees do specialised recognised courses and sign to stay for a year.
Packing is taught on the job. On the warehousing side they do fork lift truck
training. They do both on-the-job and off-the-job training. Management has
training.
REASONS FOR TRAINING OR NOT TRAINING
Everybody has the opportunity to train. The Personnel Manager thinks that
training affects performance. She thinks they are better off training. She said
they did not train in 1999 largely because of a hiccough. They train their
existing staff when there is a shortage of trained labour and promote them.
They don’t worry about poaching. They do less training and more in-house
training when the company is doing less well. There are no disincentives to
training. They use a lot of new technology therefore training is necessary.
Training is assessed by the individual managers.
LESSONS FOR WRITE-UP
A medium-sized firm with a Human Resource manager and both on-the-job
and off-the-job training. A firm which uses a lot of new technology and
therefore needs to train.
cv