La Función y el Empleo Público en las Normas Básicas

Within the limits of the small sample size in the investigation, the data allows the following conclusions to be drawn. In 2010 there is a shortage of appropriately FMCG skilled, mid level managers in certain topic areas available for recruitment by companies. Provision of industry specific, short training courses is one means that can be used to reduce this shortage. Top priority training topic areas are sales and commercial acumen, supported by a range of lower priority topics such as leadership, productivity, people management skills, commercial and financial skills, category management, marketing. FMCG companies undertake staff training (on-the-job training and/or industry focused short courses) to help their staff to do their job better. Large companies fund their staff to such training, but do not fund formal Tertiary education designed to improve their knowledge level and thinking capability (University qualifications).

In the past, the skill shortage has been identified as critical and “industry wide” and consequently translated as a need for training to be met by external training providers developing and delivering courses to the whole industry. In 2010, this interpretation is incorrect. None of the large FMCG companies are currently experiencing any skills or staff shortages. They are recruiting lower skilled staff and training them to their required level using their own in-house dedicated training programmes or recruiting trained staff from overseas or other industry sectors and “converting” them to the FMCG environment. Consequently, it is those SME’s which do not have the resources to develop and deliver their own in-house courses which require externally provided training in these identified topic areas.

The drivers for New Zealand FMCG companies training their staff are to assist employees achieving a change in mind set, the knowledge to move up the ladder, sharpening skills, improved individual performance, understanding and attitude and build capability, particularly in terms of giving employees better decision making capacity when working without supervision. The FMCG industry wants industry focused, short course to provide job based training that helps employees to do their job better. Pre- employment University qualifications are simply a “pass” to a first job interview. Companies do not fund employees to additional University qualifications because of cost and the time required for University study. If an employee does require a further

University qualification Certificates and Diplomas are preferred to part-time Degrees, again because of cost and time considerations. There is negativity towards University qualifications because the industry perceives that University courses are too general and do not address the perceived “uniqueness” of the FMCG industry.

There is mixed opinion about whether the industry has unique features that warrant the set up of dedicated University qualifications. However there is some support for a staircase from industry specific short courses to an industry specified University qualification provided it does not go higher than Bachelor level. However there are serious reservation about viability of the concept based on time, money and whether there are sufficient people in the FMCG industry to support the set up of a University qualification.

The outcomes companies want from training are improved individual performance producing improvement in the company’s bottom line, the ability to do more with less, informed productivity, creation of competitive advantage and improved staff recruitment and retention. Two companies use training to achieve their desired market positioning.

There is a general consensus that company funded training should benefit the individual as well as the company. However “identified” benefits for the individual are nebulous improved “satisfactions” - being able to do their job better, better self esteem, improved contentment in their job, happier in themselves. In analysis these are disguised company benefits as they are in reality retention devices.

In terms of course specifics, there is an excess of short courses in the market place but companies do not use most of them as they are too general and not industry specific. Large companies predominantly use dedicated in-house courses supported by occasional courses provided by external providers who they have used over a long period. Because of financial constraints SME’s use externally provided short courses where they can afford them, but many simply do not train their staff.

In the past decade there has been a paradigm shift from “academic” to “industry” focused course content and provider. University involvement in course design and delivery provides some “credibility” but is no longer essential, whereas involvement of an industry body such as the FGC is necessary. In terms of course design, apart from avoiding the industry busy times of October till Mid February there are no specific industry requirements for timing or structure of course delivery, provided there is sufficient notice given so that work schedules of attendees can be adjusted.

The New Zealand FMCG industry has the same barriers to the uptake of training as identified in other countries and industries. In this context it must be noted that interpretations from the current investigation are limited by the small size of the sample pool, and particularly as there was only one small business in the investigation. However, it can be inferred that whilst large companies have the resources to afford funding their employees to in-house, dedicated training courses, cost is a major barrier for SME’s training their staff. The market rates for a 2 day course is between NZ$2,000 to NZ$10,000, but for small companies NZ$2,000 is at the top of their affordability. However, unlike companies overseas, in New Zealand other training costs such as travel to courses and the loss of a staff member from their work place for the duration of the course are not issues.

There are also attitudinal barriers which are not restricted to small businesses or particular “levels” of employees or owners. In the New Zealand the FMCG industry there is a definite perception that the industry has some unique features that require a special set of knowledge and skills. Hence, while there is a plethora of externally provided courses available, these are neither adequate nor appropriate for the needs of the industry. Consequently companies do not use most of those available as they are perceived as too general and none-industry specific.

No definitive conclusion can be drawn about companies having concerns about training leading to increased employee portability, indeed in part Argyris’ (1985) principle of “saying one thing but doing another” seems to apply. All companies stated that increased employee portability from company funded training is not a consideration or a concern in the decision to train staff. However, this was contradicted in practice by some of them bonding staff attending company funded training. One of the large

companies who uses employee bonding identified that it is counter productive and does not work, but in some cases they still use it. Furthermore, the interviewee from the recruitment company considered bonding to be an acceptable practice for the FMCG industry.

Another barrier in New Zealand, but not reported in the literature is getting the person(s) who make decisions about training to read and act upon disseminated material about courses on offer. All large New Zealand FMCG companies have an HR department which is responsible for selection and delivery of training for the company. All of the HR managers report receiving a plethora of information about courses via mail or email. The barrier arises because the majority of this information is ignored, and when companies require new courses that can not be catered for by development of in-house courses, HR managers seek information from colleagues who have used a provider to supply similar courses, from organisations they belong to (e.g. The New Zealand Institute of Management, the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, the Employers and Manufacturers Association) or by using specific “search” companies. Hence, whilst information about courses is getting to the people in the companies who make decisions about training, they do not read, note, or particularly utilise it. This thereby perpetuates the use of “tried and tested” courses and course providers and acts as a barrier to the uptake of new courses or course offered by new providers.

ADDENDUM

THE FGC EDUCATION PROJECT