This is a story from when I was working at a consulting firm.
At one point, I was focusing on the theme of "human resource development." I was selling corporate training and educational programs to companies.
Among the experiences I had, there were a few stories that had a major impact on my view of human resource development. This is one of them.
Bosses should only train the subordinates they "like."
That is the story from a CEO who claimed, as the title suggests, that bosses should only train the subordinates they like.
Actually, until then, I held the view that "a boss must not show favoritism toward subordinates and should treat everyone as flatly as possible."
Specifically, that meant:
- Providing opportunities for skill-up and educational training as equally as possible.
- Making opportunities for promotion and advancement as even as possible.
Naturally, regarding training and education, I took it for granted that the target of employee training should be "all employees."
As someone selling training, there was also the aspect that expanding the target audience as much as possible was more profitable.
However, a CEO of a software development company I visited once flatly denied my premise.
"I don't want to make everyone the target of the training. Is it possible for the supervisor to select the participants?" he asked.
Since I firmly believed that "training targets should be everyone," I was surprised by this opinion.
I even thought, "Maybe this CEO just wants to negotiate a discount."
So I informed him:
"For in-house training, the cost doesn't change much whether everyone takes it or only a select few do."
The CEO shook his head.
"No, no, that's not what I'm talking about. In the first place, there are plenty of people for whom taking training is meaningless."
"What do you mean?"
"I only want to target those who have a desire to learn and are receptive (sunao)."
"...Which means?"
"For a boss, there are people they want to raise and people they don't care about. Isn't it a waste to go out of your way to provide education to someone you don't care about?"
I finally understood what he was saying.
In short, he was saying, "A boss should only train the ones they want to train."
Intuitively, I felt at that moment that he might be wrong, but since this company's performance was excellent and it had a reputation for high technical capabilities, I thought, "Perhaps I am the one who is wrong," and wanted to hear more of his reasoning.
"Why do you think that?"
"The purpose of employee education is to improve the company's performance. The essence of the cost of education isn't the training fee; it's the 'boss's time.' Since that is limited, it's irrational to 'spend costs equally.' It's better to intensively invest time in those who are receptive to what the boss says and have motivation."
"I see..."
"Furthermore, a boss should only train people they have deemed 'worth investing time in' or people they 'like.' That way, the boss's motivation to teach can be maintained."
"But wouldn't that cause issues with the sense of fairness?"
"Fairness is important for schools run on public funds like taxes. But this is a company. The company pays the expenses. As long as performance is good, no one has a right to complain. Besides, don't individuals do the same thing?"
"In what way?"
"Prioritizing your own children over others, approaching a romantic interest who seems promising, prioritizing education funds for the smartest child in the family, doting on a receptive child—it's all about cost-effectiveness. Everyone does it, whether consciously or unconsciously, right?"
"That may be true, but aren't employees like your own children?"
"There's no way that's true. Employees are only connected by a 'contract.' Within that, there are just a few people you feel like looking after. In the field, you actually end up having to spend more time on 'unreceptive' people than on the ones you 'want to train'—persuading them, creating a sense of buy-in. If you have that kind of time, it's better to use it on people with potential."
His way of speaking was a bit grating, but his argument was sound, and his point about "everyone prioritizing their own children" felt convincing.
Since then, I had to revise my thinking about "giving everyone an equal chance."
As long as it is an individual or a private company, chances should be given only to those you want to look after; that is the essence of the world.
As a result, when selling training, if I was asked, "Who should be the target?" I began to advise, "Please have the management or supervisors carefully select the targets. If possible, only have receptive and motivated people attend."
This had the secondary effect of "making the training more exciting by narrowing down the participants."
By filling the room with only receptive and motivated people, the interference from cynical and unmotivated people disappeared, and the quality and results of the training improved.
I believe the ideal for many managers and bosses is that they "want to give all employees the opportunity to improve their skills."
However, the resources that can be distributed are not infinite, and managers and bosses have their own preferences, ideals, and lives.
I think this is the result of searching for a realistic compromise.
And looking at it from the other side, if you are "aiming to improve your skills at that company," it means you must make an effort to enter their "training target" list by showing motivation and being receptive to your managers.
Young employees and mid-career hires may need to accept and adapt to this reality.
