Should there be a link between workforce development and the bottom line?

I attended an interesting discussion yesterday on workforce development and was surprised to hear it is a nebulous concept at best.

Should it be part of HR (which is seen as tactical) or Learning & Development (which is strategic)?

How should one define workforce development ROI? To the individual? Society? Or how about in OH&S terms that shows less absenteeism or injury while on duty has a positive impact on the bottom line?

Can one draw a linear association between the development of people in an organisation and raw Dollar outcomes?

Should one?

Previous post I spoke of moral motivation in individuals and how we can apply similar principles to the modern day corporation.

Workforce development is a good example of how business is confused over its motivation. The common mantra is economic considerations must come first (i.e. ROI) because if you go out of business you can’t do anything else. Societal and environmental considerations come next but clearly in a hierarchical pecking order.

The UN Global Compact gets it right when it speaks of the triple line in terms of people, planet and profit – in that order.

Why does business find this conversation so difficult?

The economic imperative is a false one. It’s rarely about going out of business but rather how much profit is enough.

Workforce development is an input just as profit is an output.

Profit is a consequence of doing the right things not an end in itself.

Of course business would prefer to have a balance between all three and not have to elevate one above another but that is a hard task considering there often needs to be short term compromises to realise long term gains.

Isn’t that what sustainability is all about?

Advertisement