Surver Says - should training be a separate department? - Brief Article

Training & Development, Sept, 2000 by Haidee E. Allerton

Do you feel that the training function should fall under the auspices of human resources or be a unique function on an equal footing with HR, marketing, and finance?

That question was posed by the Training Doctor, headquartered in Bristol, Connecticut, via its online monthly poll. Here are some differing responses:

* "HR is a broad function. Training is a professional discipline."

* "Training is a change function. Most HR functions are centered on maintenance and control."

* "It undermines both training and HR to put training under human resources. HR encompasses more than employee performance, and employee performance is important and broad enough to warrant its own department."

* "Training isn't broad enough to need a separate category, budget, or organizational hierarchy."

* "If training's on its own, it's more likely to be included in the planning process."

* "HR--and training--serve the needs of all employees. Needs assessments, gap analyses, career and leadership development programs, and the like should be part of a comprehensive HR strategy."

* "Training under HR sees itself as providers, not initiators."

* "Training is still an effort to improve the human resources of a company."

* "Training, when looked at under the HR umbrella, is all too often looked upon as an unnecessary cost center."

* "The training function is part of the people strategy for delivering on business objectives. Its purpose and role are important but don't warrant a level pegging."

Overall, 82 percent of respondents said the training function should be "unique and equal"; 18 percent said it should continue under HR.

Source trainingdr.com