Feature
Sometimes a reporter needs to be the antagonist asking miserly questions like “Is reskilling, retraining and upskilling workers worthwhile when so many change jobs so often? And will providing access to training keep employees from quitting, like so many experts predict?"
First let's establish what we mean when we say "so often." While a variety of research is available to answer the question, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics found that workers change jobs every 4.1 years on average. Indeed reported that the older workers stay in place longer than younger colleagues. According to its research, workers change jobs 5.7 times (roughly every year) between the ages of 18 and 24. Between 25 and 34 they change jobs an average of 2.4 times (roughly every 3.3 years). In other words, by the time the average worker is 34-year-old, they've had more than eight jobs.
A look at start and quit dates on LinkedIn substantiates those findings. Here’s what employee tenure looks like at companies like Own Backup 1.3 years, Atlassian 1.7 years, Lululemon 2.3 years, Qualtrics 2.3, Hubspot 2.3 years, Mathnasium 2.3 years, Crew Carwash 2.3 years, Accenture 2.7 years, Rocket Companies 2.7 years, ADP 2.8 years, Mastercard 2.8 years, McKinsey 2.8 years, Box 2.8 years, Deloitte 2.8 years and so on. Many of these companies are well regarded with “good learning opportunities” mentioned in reviews on Glassdoor.
Moreover, citing research from IBM, Gallup, the Labor Markets Institute at The Conference Board and others, CNBC’s financial and investing reporter Samantha Subin concluded that, “Gen Z are job-hopping, but contrary to popular belief, maybe not enough.” The general belief here is that younger workers “job hop in their youth in the search for the right career fit,” not because they aren’t being trained.
Subin's reporting also found that, “Many younger workers are also incorporating skills training to market themselves as more competitive candidates.”
A Chicken or Egg Scenario
The question researchers fail to ask is how much money and training employers should spend on workers who are destined to leave in a few years?
Peter Cappelli didn’t like the question when I asked it. “I think you have the causation reversed here — if you don’t train people and don’t give them opportunities to advance and use new skills, they quit,” said the Wharton School professor and head of its Center for Human Resources.
In an email interview, Josh Bersin argued that, “Companies have no choice but to train, develop, and advance the careers of their employees for four reasons: 1) Without training and support, no new employee can become productive. 2) Every worker I’ve ever met, and every survey shows people leave companies when they are not growing their skills. 3) Most companies are going through transformations so there is a steady need for new skills. 4.) The huge shortage of workers in roles like retail, hospitality, healthcare means that companies need to build career pathways to help employees move into these more credentialed roles.”
Related Article: Transforming Learning at Delta Airlines
Learning and Development Is About More Than Retention
Even if you accept Bersin’s answer as gospel, it raises a new question: Isn’t it likely that newly trained employees will leverage that same training to land a new job? According to a Center for American Progress report, 20% of workers leave their jobs within a year of receiving employer-provided training.
Executive advisor, speaker, co-founder of Future Forum and best-selling author Brian Elliott said that training pays off in ways that don’t necessarily include retention. He cited the recent Harvard Business Review article "Engaged Employees Create Better Customer Experiences" to make his point.
Without pause, Elliott also pointed out that the “Big 4” consulting firms — Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG — “train like crazy,” but that 50% of incoming cohorts are always out within 2 to 3 years — it's up or out by design. What the firms get out of these well-trained workers while they remain is worth more than they spend on training. The same is true for the big banks, though much of the attrition is voluntary in those cases. The belief among workers and employers is that if you are selected as an entry level analyst, receive good training and survive the first two years, you are either selected to advance or you become a highly sought after recruit.
In other words, the purpose of training isn’t employee retention: it's to equip new recruits with the knowledge they need to do the work that supports more senior associates to accomplish theirs. A side benefit is these programs give employers the information they need to separate the best from the rest.
Elliott also referenced notable training programs at retailers like Trader Joes where most crew members receive 1-3 weeks of training, including job shadowing and additional modules. Aside from learning how to run the cash register, restock shelves and interact with customers and coworkers, new crew members also taste and learn about individual foods and products, each of which enables them to provide great customer experiences. Employees appear to be happy as well: the attrition rate at Trader Joe’s is about 10%, in comparison to the average retail employee turnover rate of 60%. In some cases, that rate bumps up to 100% plus according to the Bloomberg article “US Retail Workers Are Fed Up and Quitting at Record Rates.”
Here the purpose of the training is to empower workers with the knowledge they need to create great customer experiences. Employee happiness and retention are byproducts.
Related Article: Self-Driven vs. Organization-Led Learning
Maybe It's Not About the Money
Companies who offer significant learning and development are few and far between. "Very few are doing any serious training now — it averages about half a day per year for all training, and that includes how to fill out forms, fire drills, everything," said Cappelli.
The blame lies with financial accounting practices, he said. “Training can’t be counted as an investment because accounting will only allow you to invest in 'assets,' which are things you own. If they think people are going to leave anyway, it gives them an excuse to not offer much training. It may require some time and energy initially from line managers to do learning by doing training, it benefits the company — not them — immediately, and no one wants to make them do it,” said Cappelli.
He also reasoned that managers can train employees without a large expense. “Training doesn’t have to cost money. Apprenticeships and 'stretch assignments' in white collar jobs are learning by doing, and that training is basically free because trainees are contributing as they learn,” said Cappelli.
Conference
Oct
20
Gartner IT Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
Conference
Oct
27
Gartner HR Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
If financial managers continue to be so stingy, that may be a good way for employers to proceed, especially with static or shrinking learning and development budgets that ignore what workers want and need to succeed in a rapidly changing world.
So back to the original question: does employee learning and development matter if retention is the goal? Maybe yes, maybe no. It’s safer to say that at many companies retention is a byproduct. As for companies who say that L&D matters but fail to provide the means to deliver, the answer is no, regardless of what they may proclaim in public.
