Page 159 - Successful Onboarding

146 • Successful Onboarding

These programs typically gave each recruit a series of temporary assign-
ments across the company. Graduates were exposed to the full scope and
policies of the company, coming away with the broad, cooperative point of
view a manager was supposed to have. Each manager also developed some-
thing of an instant network as well as an immediate sense of leadership.
Although not called orientation, and certainly not onboarding, these train-
ing programs arguably served as an early best-in-class example of many of
the Onboarding Margin principles.
Training programs came into their own during the 1970s, when some well-
publicized strikes encouraged what came to be known as “job enrichment.”
Personnel managers and trainers became increasingly professional in their
outlook. Ideas about organizational development made their way from uni-
versities into personnel departments, encouraging managers to think broadly
about how new employees fit into the company.
Despite these efforts, the overall picture was mixed. Many employees
received little in the way of job training throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and
virtually no attention was paid to their broader career trajectories beyond the
deep entrenchment of defined promotion paths. A large majority of man-
agers were falling through the cracks from a development perspective. Clearly
the model of survival of the fittest was in play and considered by many as not
only fair, but efficient. While big companies still often had special programs
for high-potential employees, most of these had shrunk to only a few days,
with little individual attention. A Center for Creative Leadership’s survey in
found that only a third of newly hired managers received development in
their new position, and even fewer got special attention from their bosses.
In recent years, companies have offered skills training to employees, hop-
ing to get them productive in their positions more quickly and efficiently.
This development was largely stimulated by a perceived shortage of skilled
workers and an attempt by companies to distinguish their employer brands
amidst the growing demand for knowledge workers. By 2001, some 2,000
firms were sponsoring corporate universities to disseminate cultural infor-
mation, job skills, and workplace skills like leadership and creative think-
ing. And this number was projected to grow to almost 4,000 by 2010,
exceeding the number of private US universities. According to the
2
American Society for Training and Development, US-based organizations
were spending over $100 billion during the mid-2000s on learning and
development, with expenditures and hours of training per employee on the